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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 07/24/2025:
Claims 19-28 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 25, Examiner respectfully suggests removing the single quotation marks from the limitation ‘using the sponge to wipe away the liquid polymer onto the etched portion’ in line 3, since the step in the single quotation marks above has not been previously recited for in comparison to the step of ‘apply the liquid polymer on the etched portion’, and the purpose of the single quotation marks are unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 21, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Danzik et al. (US20040045488), and further in view of Malvassora (US5075052), Stevenson
(US5746961) and Stevenson (US9296243- herein referred to as Stevenson2).
Regarding claim 19, Danzik teaches method of making intensive use furniture ([0009] a
method for producing a lightweight reinforced plastic table structure), comprising the steps of:
provide a mold (mold assembly 20; Figure 2) for use in rotational molding (see Figure 3),
the mold comprising an interior surface (see annotated Figure 2 below) surrounding a mold
cavity (inner cavity 22; Figure 2);
provide a liquid polymer ([0037] While the shell polymer material is usually in the form
of powder or pellets, liquids may also be used, and may be sprayed onto the interior mold
surface);
open the mold to expose the interior surface ([0034] the mold is then opened);
apply the liquid polymer into the interior surface ([0037] While the shell polymer
material is usually in the form of powder or pellets, liquids may also be used, and may be
sprayed onto the interior mold surface. The thin polymer layer forming the shell is intended to
provide various desired properties, including color, texture, abrasion resistance, opacity,
translucence, multiple color surfaces, impact resistance, and structural strength);
close the mold ([0038] With the frame 12 and the polymer for forming the shell 16 in
place in the mold, the mold is then closed);
heat the mold to a second temperature ([0039] After all of the raw materials have been
placed in the mold 20 or in their respective drop box(es) 34, the mold assembly is mounted on
the rotational molding machine 50 and placed in the oven 52);
provide a base layer first polymer resin ([0043] Many "drops" of polymer materials,
colors, or reagents may be made into the mold cavity as desired, whether from a single drop
box having more than one chamber (as in FIG. 2), or from multiple drop boxes (not shown). For
example, referring to FIG. 7, after the first polymer material is allowed to form the shell 16, a
second shell polymer material may be dropped into the mold, to form a second shell layer 80
inside the first. Thus one or more additional layers of polymer may be deposited inside the
outer shell layer 16), the base layer polymer resin being similar in composition to the liquid
polymer ([0026] Viewing FIG. 1, the table 10 of the present invention comprises a rigid frame 12, such as a tubular steel frame, encased within a polymer foam material 14, such as expanded
polyethylene foam, which is in turn encapsulated in a plastic skin 16, such as a more dense
polyethylene material);
charge the mold with the base layer first polymer resin ([0043] Many "drops" of polymer
materials, colors, or reagents may be made into the mold cavity as desired, whether from a
single drop box having more than one chamber (as in FIG. 2), or from multiple drop boxes (not
shown). For example, referring to FIG. 7, after the first polymer material is allowed to form the
shell 16, a second shell polymer material may be dropped into the mold, to form a second shell
layer 80 inside the first. Thus one or more additional layers of polymer may be deposited inside
the outer shell layer 16));
rotate the mold for a predetermined time ([0039] After all of the raw materials have
been placed in the mold 20 or in their respective drop box(es) 34, the mold assembly is
mounted on the rotational molding machine 50 and placed in the oven 52);
stop rotation of the mold ([0046] When the heating cycle is completed, the mold
assembly 20 is removed from the oven 52, and placed in a cooling area (not shown) for a given
time period);
open the mold (where the molded part is removed from the mold, then the mold must
be opened for the molded part to be removed); and
remove the intensive use furniture from the mold ([0046] After cooling, the molded part
is removed, and the process can be repeated).
However, Danzik fails to teach the interior surface comprising an etched portion, the
etched portion comprising material removed from the mold interior surface to form recessed grooves carved into the interior surface, the recessed grooves disposed in a pattern to simulate
a raised woodgrain effect on the interior surface such that the intensive use furniture has a
raised woodgrain finish.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to molding resins in dies, Malvassora teaches
the interior surface comprising an etched portion, the etched portion comprising material
removed from the mold interior surface to form recessed grooves carved into the interior
surface (col 2 line 15-16, the recessed grooves carved into an interior surface will form a raised
woodgrain finish), the recessed grooves disposed in a pattern to simulate a woodgrain
effect on the interior surface such that the intensive use furniture has a woodgrain finish (col 2
line 11-14). Wood grain finishes on plastic products fulfill a consumer demand for aesthetically
pleasing and inexpensive products (col 1 line 15-27).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the interior surface of Danzik to comprise an
etched portion that forms recessed grooves to simulate a woodgrain effect on the interior
surface such that the intensive use furniture has a raised woodgrain finish, as taught by
Malvassora, as one of ordinary skill would be motivated to fulfill a consumer demand of
providing aesthetically pleasing and inexpensive products. Further, the particular shape of a
product is not patentably significant. Forming recessed grooves into the interior mold surface
to simulate a woodgrain finish on a molded part is a matter related to ornamentation only, and
does not provide any mechanical function. Therefore, simulating a woodgrain finish on a
molded part does not impart patentable significance (see MPEP 2144.04.I.).
While Danzik teaches a liquid polymer that may be sprayed onto the interior mold
surface in [0037] and that the polymer may be polyethylene ([0037] the exterior shell polymer
may be of thermoset plastic or thermoplastic compounds, and may contain ultraviolet light
inhibitors, anti-oxidants, reagents, or color additives as desired. This polymer material may be,
for example, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, or composite polyester), Danzik
fails to explicitly teach that the liquid polymer comprises a plastic compound suspended in a
first solvent.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to compositions applied to mold cavities in
molding processes such as rotational molding, Stevenson teaches a microfine polyethylene
suspended in toluene that is sprayed onto a molding surface to coat the molding surface (col 3
line 21-23 and col 5 line 50-58). The article produced from the mold sprayed with the
composition has a surface free of pits and blemishes with a polished appearance, and the
external edges are even and sharply formed without irregularities (col 5 line 59-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the liquid polymer of Danzik
modified with Malvassora comprise a plastic compound suspended in a first solvent, as taught by Stevenson, to achieve the predictable result of forming the shell layer of Danzik on the rotational mold cavity surface. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since both Danzik and Stevenson are directed to spraying polyethylene onto a rotational mold cavity surface. Further, Stevenson teaches the outer polyethylene coating has a known benefit of producing polyethylene articles free of pits and blemishes with a polished appearance, and with external edges that are even and sharply formed without irregularities.
While Danzik modified with Malvassora and Stevenson teaches spraying polyethylene
suspended in a first solvent onto the rotational mold cavity surface, Danzik and Stevenson are
silent to heating the mold to a first temperature and evaporating the first solvent from the
liquid polymer on the etched portion.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming articles molded from polyethylene
resins, Stevenson2 teaches heating a carrier sheet to a first temperature to evaporate the first
solvent from the liquid polymer (col 5 line 35-44).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to heat the mold of Danzik modified with Malvassora and
Stevenson to a first temperature to achieve the predictable result of evaporating the first
solvent from the liquid polymer, as taught by Stevenson2. There would have been a reasonable
expectation of success for the solvent of the liquid polymer of Danzik modified with Malvassora
and Stevenson to evaporate, since both Stevenson and Stevenson2 are directed to liquid
polymers comprising polyethylene and a hydrocarbon solvent (see Abstract of Stevenson2).
Stevenson teaches solvents such as toluene can be used, and Stevenson2 more broadly recites
an aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon solvent, which could include toluene (an aromatic
hydrocarbon solvent).
Regarding claim 21, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2
teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 19. Further, Danzik teaches
wherein the liquid polymer further comprises a first color ([0037] exterior shell polymer may be
of thermoset plastic or thermoplastic compounds, and may contain ultraviolet light inhibitors,
anti-oxidants, reagents, or color additives as desired).
Regarding claim 23, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2
teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 19. Further, Danzik teaches the
liquid polymer comprising polyethylene, and Stevenson teaches a suspension of polyethylene is
diluted with the first solvent surface (col 3 line 21-23 and col 5 line 50-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the liquid polymer of Danzik
modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2 comprise the liquid polymer comprising
a suspension of polyethylene diluted with the first solvent, as taught by Stevenson, to achieve
the predictable result of forming the shell layer of Danzik on the rotational mold cavity surface.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since both Danzik and Stevenson
are directed to spraying polyethylene onto a rotational mold cavity surface. Further, Stevenson
teaches the outer polyethylene coating has a known benefit of producing polyethylene articles
free of pits and blemishes with a polished appearance, and with external edges that are even
and sharply formed without irregularities.
Regarding claim 27, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2
teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 19. Danzik teaches the method
further comprising the following steps before the step of open the mold:
provide a foaming polymer;
heat the mold to a foaming temperature;
charge the mold with the foaming polymer ([0040] At a preset time or temperature, the
drop box 34 opens, allowing the second polymer to flow into the mold. The second polymer
preferably contains reagents that will cause it to "blow" or expand into the foam core 14 in a controlled manner at a predetermined temperature);
rotate the mold for a predetermined time ([0055] The foam core substantially surrounds
the structural frame, which is expanded within the polymer shell to fully surround the structural
frame during the rotational molding of the shell).
Claim(s) 20, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Danzik et al. (US20040045488), Malvassora (US5075052), Stevenson (US5746961) and
Stevenson (US9296243- herein referred to as Stevenson2), and further in view of Albertelli
(US6093356).
Regarding claim 20, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2
teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 19. However, Danzik fails to
teach the method further comprising the step of: remove excess liquid polymer from the
etched portion; after the step “apply the liquid polymer onto the etched portion” and before
the step “evaporate the first solvent from the liquid polymer on the etched portion”.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming molded products with a simulated
wood grain surface, Albertelli teaches a method further comprising the step of: remove excess
liquid polymer from the etched portion; after the step “apply the liquid polymer onto the
etched portion” and before the step “evaporate the first solvent from the liquid polymer on the
etched portion” (col 2 line 26-31). Removing excess liquid polymer by wiping the interior coated
mold surface concentrates colorant on peaks of the mold surface, resulting in a desirable
gradation of color tones in the valleys that resembles a natural wood product (col 1 line 59-63,
col 2 line 1-8, and col 3 line 64-67).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Danzik modified with Malvassora,
Stevenson, and Stevenson2 further comprise the step of removing excess liquid polymer from
the etched portion after applying the liquid polymer and before evaporating the first solvent
from the liquid polymer, as taught by Albertelli. Removing excess liquid polymer by wiping the
interior coated mold surface has a known benefit of concentrating colorant on peaks of a mold
surface that results in a desirable gradation of color tones in the valleys that resembles a
natural wood product.
Regarding claim 24, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2
teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 19. However, Danzik fails to
teach the method further comprising the step: provide a sponge before the step 'apply the
liquid polymer on the etched’.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming molded products with a simulated
wood grain surface, Albertelli teaches a method further comprising the step: provide a sponge
before the step 'apply the liquid polymer on the etched portion' (col 2 line 32-43). A sponge is
used to wipe the interior coated mold surface, which concentrates colorant on peaks of the
mold surface and results in a desirable gradation of color tones in the valleys that resembles a
natural wood product.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Danzik modified with Malvassora,
Stevenson, and Stevenson2 further comprise the step of providing a sponge before the step of
applying the liquid polymer on the etched portion, as taught by Albertelli. The sponge is used to wipe the interior coated mold surface, which has a known benefit of concentrating colorant on
peaks of a mold surface that results in a desirable gradation of color tones in the valleys that
resembles a natural wood product.
Regarding claim 25, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, Stevenson2, and
Albertelli teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 24. However, Danzik
fails to teach wherein the step of 'apply the liquid polymer on the etched portion', further
comprises 'using the sponge to wipe the liquid polymer onto the etched portion'.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming molded products with a simulated
wood grain surface, Albertelli teaches wherein the step of 'apply the liquid polymer on the
etched portion', further comprises 'using the sponge to wipe the liquid polymer onto the
etched portion' (col 2 line 32-43).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the step of 'apply the liquid polymer on the
etched portion' of Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, Stevenson2, and Albertelli
further comprise 'using the sponge to wipe the liquid polymer onto the etched portion', as
taught by Albertelli. As noted above in the rejection of claim 24, the sponge is used to wipe the
interior coated mold surface, which has a known benefit of concentrating colorant on peaks of
a mold surface that results in a desirable gradation of color tones in the valleys that resembles a
natural wood product.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danzik et al.
(US20040045488), Malvassora (US5075052), Stevenson (US5746961) and Stevenson (US9296243- herein referred to as Stevenson2), and further in view of Barnard et al.
(US4405551).
Regarding claim 22, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2
teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 21. Further, Danzik teaches
wherein the base layer polymer resin further comprises a second color ([0043] Many "drops" of
polymer materials, colors, or reagents may be made into the mold cavity as desired, whether
from a single drop box having more than one chamber (as in FIG. 2), or from multiple drop
boxes (not shown). For example, referring to FIG. 7, after the first polymer material is allowed
to form the shell 16, a second shell polymer material may be dropped into the mold, to form a
second shell layer 80 inside the first). However, Danzik fails to explicitly teach the first color
darker than the second color.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to depositing layers onto a mold’s interior
surface, Barnard teaches a color contrast between layers (Abstract: a deposit of a material
which provides a color contrast with the curable composition) and teaches the use of different
colored paints or contrast material as shown in Table 1. Colored contrasts provide an
inexpensive, yet effective, way to further enhance attractive surface finishes (col 1 line 34-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first color of Danzik modified
with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2 be darker than the second color of Danzik
modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2, as taught by Barnard. Colored contrasts
have a known benefit of providing an inexpensive, yet effective, way to further enhance
attractive surface finishes. Further, color contrast is a matter related to ornamentation only, and does not provide any mechanical function. Therefore, providing a color contrast on a
mold’s interior surface does not impart patentable significance (see MPEP 2144.04.I.).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danzik et al.
(US20040045488), Malvassora (US5075052), Stevenson (US5746961) and Stevenson
(US9296243- herein referred to as Stevenson2), and further in view of Brault et al.
(US4880588).
Regarding claim 26, Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2
teaches the method of making intensive use furniture of claim 19. While Danzik fails to teach
the method further comprising cooling the mold before the step of heating the mold to a
second temperature, Danzik does teach cooling the mold before applying subsequent layers
([0046] while the mold is cooling, additional material drops may be made in the inner cavity of
the mold), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to the related art of forming multiple layers in
a mold’s interior surface.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to depositing layers onto a mold’s interior
surface, Brault teaches cooling the mold before the step of heating the mold to a second
temperature (col 4 line 34-45). Cooling allows for excess material to be removed before
reheating to deposit a second layer of material (col 4 line 36-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Danzik modified with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2 further comprise cooling the mold before the step
of heating the mold to a second temperature, as taught by Brault, for the benefit of allowing for
excess material to be removed before applying subsequent materials.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danzik et al.
(US20040045488), and further in view of Malvassora (US5075052), Stevenson (US5746961),
Stevenson (US9296243- herein referred to as Stevenson2), Barnard et al. (US4405551), and
Albertelli (US6093356).
Regarding claim 28, Danzik teaches a method of making intensive use furniture ([0009] a
method for producing a lightweight reinforced plastic table structure) comprising the steps of:
provide a mold (mold assembly 20; Figure 2) for use in rotational molding (see Figure 3),
the mold comprising an interior surface (see annotated Figure 2 in the rejection of claim 19
above);
provide a liquid polymer ([0037] While the shell polymer material is usually in the form
of powder or pellets, liquids may also be used, and may be sprayed onto the interior mold
surface), the liquid polymer comprising a first color ([0037] exterior shell polymer may be of
thermoset plastic or thermoplastic compounds, and may contain ultraviolet light inhibitors,
anti-oxidants, reagents, or color additives as desired);
close the mold ([0038] With the frame 12 and the polymer for forming the shell 16 in
place in the mold, the mold is then closed);
heat the mold to a second temperature ([0039] After all of the raw materials have been
placed in the mold 20 or in their respective drop box(es) 34, the mold assembly is mounted on the rotational molding machine 50 and placed in the oven 52);
provide a base layer polymer resin, the base layer polymer resin comprising a second
color ([0043] Many "drops" of polymer materials, colors, or reagents may be made into the
mold cavity as desired, whether from a single drop box having more than one chamber (as in
FIG. 2), or from multiple drop boxes (not shown). For example, referring to FIG. 7, after the first
polymer material is allowed to form the shell 16, a second shell polymer material may be
dropped into the mold, to form a second shell layer 80 inside the first. Thus one or more
additional layers of polymer may be deposited inside the outer shell layer 16);
dispose the base layer polymer resin in the mold ([0043] Many "drops" of polymer
materials, colors, or reagents may be made into the mold cavity as desired, whether from a
single drop box having more than one chamber (as in FIG. 2), or from multiple drop boxes (not
shown). For example, referring to FIG. 7, after the first polymer material is allowed to form the
shell 16, a second shell polymer material may be dropped into the mold, to form a second shell
layer 80 inside the first. Thus one or more additional layers of polymer may be deposited inside
the outer shell layer 16);
rotate the mold for a predetermined time ([0039] After all of the raw materials have
been placed in the mold 20 or in their respective drop box(es) 34, the mold assembly is
mounted on the rotational molding machine 50 and placed in the oven 52);
provide a foaming polymer;
dispose the foaming polymer in the mold;
rotate the mold for a predetermined time ([0055] The foam core substantially surrounds
the structural frame, which is expanded within the polymer shell to fully surround the structural frame during the rotational molding of the shell);
cool the mold ([0046] When the heating cycle is completed, the mold assembly 20 is
removed from the oven 52, and placed in a cooling area (not shown) for a given time period);
and
remove the intensive use furniture ([0046] After cooling, the molded part is removed,
and the process can be repeated).
However, Danzik fails to teach the interior surface comprising an etched portion, the
etched portion comprising material removed from the mold interior surface to form recessed
grooves carved into the interior surface, the recessed grooves disposed in a pattern to simulate
a woodgrain effect on the interior surface such that the intensive use furniture has a woodgrain
finish.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to molding resins in dies, Malvassora teaches
the interior surface comprising an etched portion, the etched portion comprising material
removed from the mold interior surface to form recessed grooves carved into the interior
surface (col 2 line 15-16), the recessed grooves disposed in a pattern to simulate a woodgrain
effect on the interior surface such that the intensive use furniture has a woodgrain finish (col 2
line 11-14). Wood grain finishes on plastic products fulfill a consumer demand for aesthetically
pleasing and inexpensive products (col 1 line 15-27).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the interior surface of Danzik to comprise an
etched portion that forms recessed grooves to simulate a woodgrain effect on the interior
surface such that the intensive use furniture has a woodgrain finish, as taught by Malvassora, as one of ordinary skill would be motivated to fulfill a consumer demand of providing aesthetically
pleasing and inexpensive products. Further, the particular shape of a product is not patentably
significant. Forming recessed grooves into the interior mold surface to simulate a woodgrain
finish on a molded part is a matter related to ornamentation only, and does not provide any
mechanical function. Therefore, simulating a woodgrain finish on a molded part does not
impart patentable significance (see MPEP 2144.04.I.).
While Danzik teaches a liquid polymer that may be sprayed onto the interior mold
surface in [0037] and that the polymer may be polyethylene ([0037] the exterior shell polymer
may be of thermoset plastic or thermoplastic compounds, and may contain ultraviolet light
inhibitors, anti-oxidants, reagents, or color additives as desired. This polymer material may be,
for example, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, or composite polyester), Danzik
fails to explicitly teach that the liquid polymer comprises a plastic compound suspended in a
first solvent.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to compositions applied to mold cavities in
molding processes such as rotational molding, Stevenson teaches a microfine polyethylene
suspended in toluene that is sprayed onto a molding surface to coat the molding surface (col 3
line 21-23 and col 5 line 50-58). The article produced from the mold sprayed with the
composition has a surface free of pits and blemishes with a polished appearance, and the
external edges are even and sharply formed without irregularities (col 5 line 59-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the liquid polymer of Danzik
modified with Malvassora comprise a plastic compound suspended in a first solvent, as taught by Stevenson, to achieve the predictable result of forming the shell layer of Danzik on the rotational mold cavity surface. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since both Danzik and Stevenson are directed to spraying polyethylene onto a rotational mold cavity surface. Further, Stevenson teaches the outer polyethylene coating has a known benefit of producing polyethylene articles free of pits and blemishes with a polished appearance, and with external edges that are even and sharply formed without irregularities.
While Danzik modified with Malvassora and Stevenson teaches spraying polyethylene
suspended in a first solvent onto the rotational mold cavity surface, Danzik and Stevenson are
silent to heating the mold to a first temperature and evaporating the first solvent from the
liquid polymer on the etched portion.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming articles molded from polyethylene
resins, Stevenson2 teaches heating a carrier sheet to a first temperature to evaporate the first
solvent from the liquid polymer (col 5 line 35-44).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to heat the mold of Danzik modified with Malvassora and
Stevenson to a first temperature to achieve the predictable result of evaporating the first
solvent from the liquid polymer, as taught by Stevenson2. There would have been a reasonable
expectation of success for the solvent of the liquid polymer of Danzik modified with Malvassora
and Stevenson to evaporate, since both Stevenson and Stevenson2 are directed to liquid
polymers comprising polyethylene and a hydrocarbon solvent (see Abstract of Stevenson2).
Stevenson teaches solvents such as toluene can be used, and Stevenson2 more broadly recites an aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon solvent, which could include toluene (an aromatic
hydrocarbon solvent).
Further, Danzik teaches wherein the base layer polymer resin further comprises a
second color ([0043] Many "drops" of polymer materials, colors, or reagents may be made into
the mold cavity as desired, whether from a single drop box having more than one chamber (as
in FIG. 2), or from multiple drop boxes (not shown). For example, referring to FIG. 7, after the
first polymer material is allowed to form the shell 16, a second shell polymer material may be
dropped into the mold, to form a second shell layer 80 inside the first). However, Danzik fails to
explicitly teach the first color darker than the second color.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to depositing layers onto a mold’s interior
surface, Barnard teaches a color contrast between layers (Abstract: a deposit of a material
which provides a color contrast with the curable composition) and teaches the use of different
colored paints or contrast material as shown in Table 1. Colored contrasts provide an
inexpensive, yet effective, way to further enhance attractive surface finishes (col 1 line 34-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first color of Danzik modified
with Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2 be darker than the second color of Danzik
modified with Malvassora , Stevenson, and Stevenson2, as taught by Barnard. Colored contrasts
have a known benefit of providing an inexpensive, yet effective, way to further enhance
attractive surface finishes. Further, color contrast is a matter related to ornamentation only,
and does not provide any mechanical function. Therefore, providing a color contrast on a
mold’s interior surface does not impart patentable significance (see MPEP 2144.04.I.).
Further, Danzik fails to teach the method further comprising the step: provide a wiper
for use with the liquid polymer; wipe the liquid polymer onto the etched portion and wipe away
excess leaving liquid polymer in the grooves in the interior surface.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming molded products with a simulated
wood grain surface, Albertelli teaches a method further comprising the step: provide a wiper
for use with the liquid polymer; wipe the liquid polymer onto the etched portion and wipe away
excess leaving liquid polymer in the grooves in the interior surface portion' (col 2 line 32-43). A
sponge is used to wipe the interior coated mold surface, which concentrates colorant on peaks
of the mold surface and results in a desirable gradation of color tones in the valleys that
resembles a natural wood product.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Danzik modified with Malvassora ,
Stevenson, Stevenson2, and Barnard further comprise the step of providing a wiper for use with
the liquid polymer and wiping away excess leaving liquid polymer in the grooves in the interior
surface portion, as taught by Albertelli. The sponge is used to wipe the interior coated mold
surface, which has a known benefit of concentrating colorant on peaks of a mold surface that
results in a desirable gradation of color tones in the valleys that resembles a natural wood
product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Danzik fails to teach “a plastic dissolved in solvent” (see pg. 1 of Remarks), Examiner noted on pg. 7 of the Office Action mailed 04/24/2025 that Danzik fails to explicitly teach that the liquid polymer, which may be polyethyelene, sprayed onto the interior mold surface comprises a plastic compound suspended in a first solvent. Examiner relies on Stevenson (‘961) to teach a polyethylene composition sprayed onto mold cavities to coat the molding surface is polyethyelene suspended in toluene (see pg. 7 of the Office Action mailed 04/24/2025) and establish that it would have been obvious for the liquid polymer of Danzik modified with Malvassora (‘052) to comprise a plastic compound suspended in a first solvent.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Danzik fails to teach heating the mold to a first temperature to allow the polymer in solvent to adhere and melt onto the mold inside surface in the grooves of the etching, it is noted that said features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Adhering and melting are not the same as evaporating the first solvent from the liquid polymer on the etched portions as is recited in claim 19. Danzik teaches a heating step which is relied on to teach the step of heating the mold to a second temperature as noted in the rejection of claim 19 above and on pg. 4 of the Office Action mailed 04/24/2025, and Stevenson2 (‘243) is relied on to teach heating the mold to a first temperature to evaporate the solvent from the liquid polymer as noted in the rejection of claim 19 above and on pg. 8 of the Office Action mailed 04/24/2025
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Danzik does not disclose a second heating to the mold, as noted above, Examiner relies on Danzik to teach “heat the mold to a second temperature” as noted in the rejection of claim 19 above and on pg. 4 of the Office Action mailed 04/24/2025.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Malvassora teaches away from Applicant’s invention disclosing “the contrasting color is applied as ink on the finish product and adding additional layers to the product to protect the contrasting ink” and “applying the polymer to only the heated… mold surface”, it is noted that said features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, Examiner only relies on Malvassora to teach that it would have been obvious for the interior surface of the mold of Danzik to comprise etched portions, since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to fulfill a consumer demand of providing aesthetically pleasing and inexpensive products (see pg. 6 of Office Action mailed 04/24/2025), and does not rely on Malvassora to teach a polymer suspended in a solvent.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Stevenson teaches away from Applicant’s invention because Stevenson applies a substrate on the mold inner surface without heating the mold, Examiner does not rely on Stevenson to teach any heating steps. Rather, Examiner relies on Stevenson to teach that it would have been obvious for the polymer spray of Danzik that is sprayed onto the interior mold surface to be a polymer suspended in a solution to achieve the predictable result of forming the shell layer of Danzik (see pg. 7 of Office Action mailed 04/24/2025). Examiner also established on pg. 7 of the Office Action that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the spray of Danzik to be a polymer suspended in a solution, since both Danzik and Stevenson are directed to spraying polyethylene onto a rotational mold cavity surface as an outer coating.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of using the method of Stevenson with an enhanced surface portion having etched grooves formed in the mold inner surface. However, Examiner does not rely on Stevenson to teach that the polymer suspended in a solution is applied onto etched grooves formed in the mold inner surface. Examiner relies on Danzik to teach a polymer composition is sprayed onto the inner mold surface, and Examiner further relies on Malvassora to teach that it would have been obvious for the interior surface of the mold of Danzik to comprise etched portions, since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to fulfill a consumer demand of providing aesthetically pleasing and inexpensive products. Stevenson is relied on to show that it would have been obvious for the polymer spray of Danzik that is sprayed onto the interior mold surface to be a polymer suspended in a solution to achieve the predictable result of forming the shell layer of Danzik. Therefore, it is the combination of the teachings of Danzik, Malvassora, and Stevenson that Examiner relies on to show that it would have been obvious for the polymer suspended in a solution to be applied onto etched grooves formed in the mold inner surface.
Further, Applicant argues that the alleged benefit of Stevenson is entirely unrelated to Applicant’s invention. However, a reason or motivation to modify a reference may be different from what inventor has done, and may be for a different purpose to solve a different problem (see MPEP 2144.IV.).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Stevenson2 does not teach or disclose etched grooves are filled with polymer in solvent and dried to leave the polymer in the grooves to become an integrally molded portion of the finished part, Examiner notes that the claim does not explicitly recite the polymer is left in the grooves to become an integrally molded portion of the finished part. Regardless, it is the combination of the teachings of Danzik, Malvassora, Stevenson, and Stevenson2 that Examiner relies on to show that it would have been obvious for polymer suspended in a solution to be heated to evaporate the solvent on the etched portion, as noted in the rejection of claim 19 above and on pg. 8 of the Office Action mailed 04/24/2025. Stevenson2 is relied on to teach the step of heating a polymer suspended in a solution to achieve evaporation.
While applicant argues that Stevenson2’s additional handling of the components to make the finished part is in contrast to Applicant’s invention, it is noted that said features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Barnard fails to teach using a liquid polymer in the mold on the inner surface (see pg. 3 of Remarks), Examiner does not rely on Barnard to teach the application of a liquid polymer in the mold on the inner surface. As noted in the rejection of claim 22 above and on pg. 13 of the Office Action mailed 04/24/2025, Danzik teaches a base layer can further comprise a second color, and Barnard is relied on to teach a color contrast between layers. Therefore, it is the combination of Danzik, Malvassora, Stevenson, Stevenson2, and Barnard that shows it would have been obvious for the first color to be darker than a second color, for the benefit of providing an inexpensive, yet effective, way to further enhance attractive surface finishes. Examiner also noted that providing a color contrast on a mold’s interior surface does not impart patentable significance, since color contrast is a matter related to ornamentation only and does not provide any mechanical function (see MPEP 2144.04.I).
Equivalent arguments were made by Applicant in regards to claim 28 on pg. 3-4 of Remarks. Examiner has addressed the arguments made for claim 28 in the arguments made for claim 14 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743