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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed February 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 20 are currently amended. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-21 are pending and under examination.
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 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 3,922,328) in view of Hill et al. (US 2,803,041) and/or Walrath et al. (US 2014/0167315).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches an extrusion system for producing a colored article (col. 14, lines 23-27) comprising: an extruder (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21)); at least one die operable to shape material exiting the extruder (Figure 1 (22)); a calibrator/sizing die downstream of the at least one die (Figure 1 (23); Figure 5 (44); col. 6, lines 44-51); and an extrusion gap defined between the at least one die and the calibrator; wherein a bubble is formed in the material at the extrusion gap to impart a randomized simulated pattern into the material (Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (30); Figures 4 and 5 (45); col. 4, lines 37-52).
Johnson teaches the inclusion of additional colorants for producing a colored and decorative effect (col. 14, lines 23-27 - the decorative effect provided by the colorant at this portion of the disclosure is understood to produce a “simulated appearance” under a broad reasonable interpretation and is not necessarily limited to the appearance of wood in the claim or in Johnson; and/or col. 2, lines 58-66 – color utilized for facilitating the appearance of wood) and further teaches the addition of fibrous materials for reinforcing the produced article (col. 14, lines 28-33). Johnson does not teach the structure for adding these materials includes at least one color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material.
However, Walrath et al. teach an analogous system wherein a structure capable of injecting a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern including injectors that define a corresponding nozzle extending into an operable with the material cable of injecting a colorant thereinto with each injector being positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle injects into the material ( feeding fins (14); paragraphs [0024]- [0026]; Figures 2-12; paragraph [0028] – for producing lumber products).
Additionally, or alternatively, Hill et al. teach an analogous method wherein the height/depth of additional material added to/within the base material is controlled by the position of injection tips (26) at the end of injection passages (24) (Figures 1-4; col. 1, lines 25-34; col. 2, lines 14-25; col. 3, lines 17-26 and 54-58). In one interpretation, the injection tips are understood to be capable of being adjusted as claimed.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the Walrath et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Walrath et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Walrath et al. of producing a reinforced article having desired properties. In this combination, the same claimed structure is suggested by the combination of Johnson and Walrath et al. even though it is utilized in a different manner than disclosed. The injectors/fins of Walrath et al. are capable of injecting color as claimed (e.g. as a standalone colorant or as a colored reinforcing fiber material).
Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the teaching of Hill et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Hill et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Hill et al. and Johnson of producing an article having a desired decorative appearance. In this second combination the same claimed structure is suggested by the combination of Johnson and Hill et al. because the corresponding injectors are understood to be capable of being adjusted to the extent required by the claim. The coloring structure of Hill et al. adds a decorative appearance to the foamed profile of Johnson.
Further, in another alternative, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Hill et al. and Walrath et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of controlling the appearance and properties of the produced final material in a desired manner. In this third combination, the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are taken together to suggest a system that includes color injectors that are intended to inject color (e.g. as explicitly taught by Hill et al.) with injectors that are clearly and explicitly adjustable (e.g. as explicitly taught by Walrath et al.)
In each of the three scenarios set forth above, the color injectors suggested by the secondary references would be located downstream of extruder (20) in Johnson et al. generally at the extrusion die position (22) of Johnson et al. From this location, the material exits the pressurized system and the bubble/unconfined expanded mass (30) of Johnson et al. is provided as it travels to the calibrator/sizing equipment/sizing die (23) of Johnson et al. As such, in the combination, the extrusion gap is defined between the at least one die and the calibrator downstream of the at least one color injector as claimed.
As to claims 2 and 19, Hill et al. (Figures 1-4 (21) (24) (26) (27)) and Walrath et al. (Figures 2-12 (13) (14) (16) (18) (20)), alone or together, teach a feed capable/operable to deliver a continuous supply of colorant and the nozzle is operable/capable to transfer the colorant as claimed. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claims 3 and 18, the injectors set forth by Hill et al. (Figures 1-3 (21) (24) (26) – these portions engage with the injection system and the flowing material) and Walrath et al. (Figures 2-12; the injectors/fins engage with the die (12) and have a curved end portions (Figure 8) which engage with the flowing material). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claims 4, 5, and 10 in the combination set forth above, the color injector introduced by the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. is an “injection block” positioned downstream of the die in order to introduce the color and the gap is thereby defined between the injection block and the calibrator as claimed. The blocks have holes capable/operable of engaging as claimed.
As to claims 6-8, in the combination, the same claimed structure is taught and suggested by the teaching of Hill et al. (Figures 1-3) and Walrath et al. (Figures 2-12). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 9, in the combination, the calibrator is “aligned” with the ends of the injection block and the bubble is capable of expanding as claimed (Johnson: Figures 1, 4, 5, 10 and 14; wherein the injection block suggested by the combination is positioned downstream of the die of Johnson).
As to claim 11, in Johnson, the conical portion at the inlet of die (22) and near the outlet of extruder (20) is understood to read upon the claimed feed throat and the downstream/outlet section of die (22) is reasonably understood to form the claimed die. As such, Johnson teaches a feed throat and a die as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Johnson teaches an extrusion system for producing a colored article (col. 14, lines 23-27) comprising: an extruder (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21)); a feed throat operable to receive material from the extruder exit (the conical portion at the inlet of die (22) and near the outlet of extruder (20) is understood to read upon the claimed feed throat and the downstream/outlet section of die (22) is reasonably understood to form the claimed die); at least one die operable to shape material exiting the extruder directed from the feed throat (Figure 1 (22) – downstream portion/outlet); a calibrator/sizing die downstream of the at least one die (Figure 1 (23); Figure 5 (44); col. 6, lines 44-51); and an extrusion gap defined between the at least one die and the calibrator; wherein a bubble is formed in the material at the extrusion gap to impart a randomized simulated pattern into the material (Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (30); Figures 4 and 5 (45); col. 4, lines 37-52).
Johnson teaches the inclusion of additional colorants for producing a colored and decorative effect (col. 14, lines 23-27 - the decorative effect provided by the colorant at this portion of the disclosure is understood to produce a “simulated appearance” under a broad reasonable interpretation, not necessarily limited to the appearance of wood; col. 2, lines 58-66 – coloring utilized for facilitating producing the appearance of wood) and further teaches the addition of fibrous materials for reinforcing the produced article (col. 14, lines 28-33). Johnson does not teach at least one color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern and amount to impart a simulated appearance into the material, each color injector defining an injector tip extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto; at least one injector insert hole defined in an injection block and is operable to receive a corresponding color injector therethrough, each respective color injector being operably movable relative to the corresponding injector insert hole to adjust an injection depth into the material of the corresponding injector tip of the at least one color injector inside of the injection block.
However, Walrath et al. teach an analogous system wherein a structure capable of injecting a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern including injectors that define a corresponding nozzle extending into an operable with the material cable of injecting a colorant thereinto with each injector being positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle injects into the material and including injection tips and openings in an injector block as claimed ( feeding fins (14) paragraphs [0024]- [0026]; Figures 2-12; paragraph [0028] – for producing lumber products).
Additionally, or alternatively, Hill et al. teach an analogous method wherein the height/depth of additional material added to/within the base material is controlled by the position of injection tips (26) at the end of injection passages (24) (Figures 1-4; col. 1, lines 25-34; col. 2, lines 14-25; col. 3, lines 17-26 and 54-58). In one interpretation, the injection tips are understood to be capable of being adjusted as claimed and the structure is understood to include injection tips and openings in an injector block as claimed to provide a color injector with an injection block having each and every claimed structural limitation.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the Walrath et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Walrath et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Walrath et al. of producing a reinforced article having desired properties. In this combination, the same claimed structure is suggested by the combination of Johnson and Walrath et al. even though it is utilized in a different manner than disclosed. The injectors/fins of Walrath et al. are capable of injecting color as claimed (e.g. as a standalone colorant or as a colored reinforcing fiber material).
Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the teaching of Hill et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Hill et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Hill et al. and Johnson of producing an article having a desired decorative appearance. In this second combination the same claimed structure is suggested by the combination of Johnson and Hill et al. because the corresponding injectors are understood to be capable of being adjusted to the extent required by the claim. The coloring structure of Hill et al. adds a decorative appearance to the foamed profile of Johnson.
Further, in another alternative, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Hill et al. and Walrath et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of controlling the appearance and properties of the produced final material in a desired manner. In this third combination, the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are taken together to suggest a system that includes color injectors that are intended to inject color (e.g. as explicitly taught by Hill et al.) with injectors that are clearly and explicitly adjustable (e.g. as explicitly taught by Walrath et al.)
In each of the three scenarios set forth above, the color injectors suggested by the secondary references would be located downstream of extruder (20) in Johnson et al. generally at the extrusion die position (22) of Johnson et al. From this location, the material exits the pressurized system and the bubble/unconfined expanded mass (30) of Johnson et al. is provided as it travels to the calibrator/sizing equipment/sizing die (23) of Johnson et al. As such, in the combination, the extrusion gap is defined between the at least one die and the calibrator downstream of the at least one color injector as claimed.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 3,922,328) in view of Hill et al. (US 2,803,041) and/or Walrath et al. (US 2014/0167315), as applied to claims 1-11, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Bambara et al. (US 5,998,006).
As to claims 12-17, the combination teaches the system set forth above. Johnson does not teach a feed throat that includes an injector insert hole as claimed operable to add colorant as claimed. However, Bambara et al. disclose an analogous system wherein colorant is configured to be added at a feed throat located at the exit of the extruder and upstream of the die (Figure 1 (14) (22) (24) (18) (19) (16); col. 3, lines 45-66; col. 4, lines 44-50).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson and Bambara et al. and to have included a feed throat as claimed configured to provide colorant as claimed in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Bambara et al., of providing a means by which to add additional coloring and/or design to the profile or substate of Johnson to improve or change the appearance of the article in a desired manner. In combination, each and every limitation of the claims is disclosed.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 3,922,328) in view of Hill et al. (US 2,803,041) and/or Walrath et al. (US 2014/0167315) alone or further in view of either one of Kim (US 2014/0113155) or Fortuyn et al. (US 2009/0326113).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson teaches an extrusion system for producing a colored article (col. 14, lines 23-27) comprising: an extruder (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21)); at least one die operable to shape material exiting the extruder (Figure 1 (22)); a calibrator/sizing die downstream of the at least one die (Figure 1 (23); Figure 5 (44); col. 6, lines 44-51); and an extrusion gap defined between the at least one die and the calibrator; wherein a bubble is formed in the material at the extrusion gap to impart a simulated appearance into the material (Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (30); Figures 4 and 5 (45); col. 4, lines 37-52).
Johnson teaches the inclusion of additional colorants for producing a colored and decorative effect (col. 14, lines 23-27 - the decorative effect provided by the colorant at this portion of the disclosure is understood to produce a “simulated appearance” under a broad reasonable interpretation and is not necessarily limited to the appearance of wood in the claim or in Johnson; and/or col. 2, lines 58-66 – color utilized for facilitating the appearance of wood) and further teaches the addition of fibrous materials for reinforcing the produced article (col. 14, lines 28-33). Johnson does not teach the structure for adding these materials includes at least one color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material.
However, Walrath et al. teach an analogous system wherein a structure capable of injecting a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern including injectors that define a corresponding nozzle extending into an operable with the material cable of injecting a colorant thereinto with each injector being positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle injects into the material ( feeding fins (14); paragraphs [0024]- [0026]; Figures 2-12; paragraph [0028] – for producing lumber products).
Additionally, or alternatively, Hill et al. teach an analogous method wherein the height/depth of additional material added to/within the base material is controlled by the position of injection tips (26) at the end of injection passages (24) (Figures 1-4; col. 1, lines 25-34; col. 2, lines 14-25; col. 3, lines 17-26 and 54-58). In one interpretation, the injection tips are understood to be capable of being adjusted as claimed.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the Walrath et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Walrath et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Walrath et al. of producing a reinforced article having desired properties. In this combination, the same claimed structure is suggested by the combination of Johnson and Walrath et al. even though it is utilized in a different manner than disclosed. The injectors/fins of Walrath et al. are capable of injecting color as claimed (e.g. as a standalone colorant or as a colored reinforcing fiber material).
Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the teaching of Hill et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Hill et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Hill et al. and Johnson of producing an article having a desired decorative appearance. In this second combination the same claimed structure is suggested by the combination of Johnson and Hill et al. because the corresponding injectors are understood to be capable of being adjusted to the extent required by the claim. The coloring structure of Hill et al. adds a decorative appearance to the foamed profile of Johnson.
Further, in another alternative, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson with the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. and to have utilized a color injector operable to inject a colorant into the material exiting the extruder in a pre-defined pattern, each color injector defining a corresponding nozzle extending into and operable with the material to inject a corresponding colorant thereinto, each color injector being adjustably positionable to vary a depth at which the corresponding nozzle thereof injects the corresponding colorant thereof into the material, in the system of Johnson, as suggested by Hill et al. and Walrath et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of controlling the appearance and properties of the produced final material in a desired manner. In this third combination, the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are taken together to suggest a system that includes color injectors that are intended to inject color (e.g. as explicitly taught by Hill et al.) with injectors that are clearly and explicitly adjustable (e.g. as explicitly taught by Walrath et al.)
In each of the three scenarios set forth above, each and every structural limitation of the claim directed to the injection system is met with the exception of the extrusion gap being explicitly disclosed as being in a range of ½-1 inch. As an initial matter, the disclosure of Johnson is understood to reasonably suggest controlling the extrusion gap to a suitable value to facilitate formation of both the bubble/unexpanded mass (30) while achieving the intended sizing results of the calibrator/sizing equipment/sizing die (23). This is understood to render the claimed distance prima facie obvious as achieving both the unexpanded mass (30) while continuing to benefit from the presence of the sizing die (23) requires consideration of distance such that the extruded material has not completely solidified beyond its ability to be sized/calibrated before reaching the calibrator/sizing equipment/sizing die. As such, the distance would have been readily determined as a routine expedient by one having ordinary skill in the extrusion art when attempting to implement the system and method of Johnson.
Further, each of Kim (paragraphs [0002], [0008], and [0049]-[0051]) and Fortuyn et al. (paragraph [0078] – shorter extrusion gap distances yield better aesthetics in the finished extruded article; Table 3 – 0.4 inches (1 cm) is about ½”) disclose analogous systems and methods wherein a short extrusion gap is taught and suggested to improve the quality of the overall product.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Johnson and either one of Kim or Fortuyn et al. and to have utilized an extrusion gap within the claimed range of ½-1” in the system of Johnson, as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving/maintaining the quality of the extruded article. Each of the references reasonably suggest the extrusion gap distance is a result effective variable that would have been readily optimized/minimized to achieve a desired final product quality. With Johnson, the gap needs to be big enough to allow for the development of the bubble/mass (30), but would not be allowed to be any larger than necessary as a large extrusion gap would negatively impact the quality of the produced article. The selection of a value within the claimed range is understood to be rendered prima facie obvious in view of the teaching and suggestion of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to claim 20 has overcome the previous section 112b rejection of the claim. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments against the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Walrath and Hill teach away from an intended purpose that is taught in Johnson, particularly the bubble taught in Johnson. More specifically, applicant argues that with the feeding fins (14) placing fibers (13) into the product of Walrath, a skilled artisan would be discouraged from following this path set out in Walrath since the bubble formed in Johnson would likely force the reinforcement fibers (13) of Walrath to move towards the surface of the product or even penetrate through the surface of the product thus defeating the purpose of the feeding fins. This argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter, it is noted that both of Johnson (col. 2, lines 42-col. 3, line 16) and Walrath (paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0024] and [0026]) are directed to extrusion systems/methods for producing plastic lumber/wood. They both disclose analogous systems/methods. Further, Johnson specifically discloses that the system/method is suitable for use with reinforcing materials, such as fibers (col. 14, lines 17-34). While the foaming/expansion/bubble formation that takes place in Johnson as it exits the die may conceivably, although not necessarily, result in some movement of additives/fibers, this is not necessarily a problem, even if it happened to some extent – which it is not clear that it would, since Johnson explicitly teaches that additives, including reinforcing materials, such as fibers, may be utilized in the system/method. As such, providing the feeding fins (14) of Walrath et al. to the system of Johnson, such that reinforcing fibers can be added to the extruded article of Johnson does not constitute a teaching away as argued.
Additionally, applicant notes that the fibers (13) of Walrath et al. are added in the final forming extrusion die tool (12) and that this clearly teaches away from Johnson since use of the feeding fins would need to be implemented after the bubble of Johnson in this combination. This argument is not persuasive. It appears the argument is suggesting that, in combination, the fins (14) of Walrath et al., if utilized, would be added downstream of bubble/mass (30) at sizing or shaping die 23 (see Figure 1 of Johnson), presumably because “sizing or shaping die 23” is the “final” piece of equipment called a die in Johnson. This argument is not persuasive. In the combination, the structure of Johnson that corresponds with extrusion die tool (12) of Walrath is die/nozzle (22). Die/nozzle (22) is the structure through which the extruder processes the material and from which the extruded material enters the atmosphere. In Walrath, feeding fins (14) are located “in the final forming die section” (paragraph [0023]) and this is understood to be the downstream section of the extrusion die prior to exiting the system and entering the atmosphere as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize (see paragraphs [0035] and [0036], as well as Figures 1-3, 10, 11 and 12 of Walrath et al. showing and suggestion the configuration of the equipment). In combination, the fins (14) of Walrath et al. are located in a structure corresponding to the location (22) of Johnson. As such the color injectors/fins (14) in the combination are located such that the extrusion gap of Johnson is “between the at least one die and the calibrator downstream of the at least one color injector” as claimed. It is further noted that the combination set forth above also suggests merely relying upon the adjustability teaching of Walrath et al. in combination with the teaching of Hill. In this combination, the corresponding injectors of Hill are more explicitly made to be adjustable in view of the teaching of Walrath et al. In this understanding of the suggestion of the prior art, the color is injected at the location suggested by Hill and the injectors of Hill are made adjustable as claimed as suggested by Walrath et al. In this understanding, the extrusion gap is also maintained at the required location.
As to the Hill reference, applicant argues that Hill only teaches the use of a single injection stage where the material is injected in a staggered, yet predetermined, pattern without any further impartments subsequent to such injection. This argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, there is not an explicit connection made in the arguments regarding the claimed language and the asserted difference. It appears that the argument is suggesting that the coloring provided by Hill does not impart “a randomized, simulated pattern” within the scope of the claim. This argument is not persuasive. The structure suggested by the combination reads upon the claimed structure and is therefore understood to be capable of producing the claimed randomized simulated pattern even if one wanted to conclude that what is shown in Figure 4 of Hill is not a randomized simulated pattern. As such, for this first reason the rejection is understood to still be proper because the suggested structure is capable of producing the randomized pattern. Further, the examiner does not agree that the result explicitly suggested by the combination does not suggest a randomized pattern as claimed. There will necessarily be some variability/randomness in the patterns formed by the configuration(s) suggested by Hill in the combination. As the highly viscous materials travel through the equipment prior to exiting the die, there will be some variability/randomness that follows in both the shape and location within the produced structure as a result of the high pressures, high pressure drop, and foam expansion of the materials. As such, this also is understood to read upon the claimed invention and produces a “randomized, simulated pattern” as claimed. By contrast, a system or method that ink-jet printed a consistent and highly repeatable simulated pattern onto the exterior surface of a completed and cooled extruded article would be an example of a pattern that may not be reasonably understood to be “randomized”. However, that is not what is suggested by the combination and the word “randomized” is not understood to sufficiently differentiate over the capability of the injection system suggested by the prior art or the product that would be actually produced by utilizing the injection system suggested by the prior art in the disclosed manner.
As to Bambara et al., it is argued that the reference teaches away from Johnson due to the presence of a breaker plate (18) in Bambara et al. This argument is not persuasive. Johnson is interested in producing patterns/effects that are accentuated by different coloring (col. 4, lines 37-52). The structure set forth by Bambara et al. and as set forth above in the rejection teaches and suggests a manner in which to provide patterns/effects to the extruded article. The reference is not understood to teach away from the teaching of Johnson et al.
However, it is noted that the Hill et al. reference is not configured to continuously inject a supply of colorant simultaneously from each color injector. The color in Hill et al. may be injected into the extruded article continuously, but the arrangement is such that each injector is not able to continuously inject colorant simultaneously into the extruded article. An amendment to the claims that further limited/clarified the scope of current claims 1, 20 and 21 such that it required a structural configuration capable of continuous and simultaneous injection of color from each color injector would overcome the applicability of the Hill et al. reference. For the purposes of clarity, it is noted that a broadening claim with such a limitation may not overcome the art of record. It is also noted that the suggested limitation by itself does not overcome the teaching of Walrath et al.
As to Walrath et al., it is noted that the structure suggested by Walrath et al. does not teach or suggest feeding the colorant to the injectors with a pressurized hose or through a hopper. There is no suggestion in Walrath et al. to add this additional equipment to feed the continuous fiber to the structurally corresponding color injectors/fins (14). An amendment to the claims that further limited/clarified the scope of current claims 1, 20 and 21 such that it required a pressurized hose or a hopper for feeding the colorant to the color injector would overcome the applicability of Walrath et al. For the purposes of clarity, it is noted that a broadening claim with such a limitation may not overcome the art of record.
An amendment that included both of the above suggestions without broadening claims 1, 20 and 21 in any other manner would appear to overcome the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742