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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed January 28, 2026 has been entered. Claims 4, 8, 11, and 21 are currently amended. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 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 1-14 and 16-21 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 Walrath et al. (US 2014/0167315).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches method of forming an extrusion bubble in an extruded material comprising extruding the material from an extruder to at least one die (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21) (22)); feeding a first portion of the material along the at least one die (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21) (22)); feeding the material along a calibrator (Figure 1 (23); Figure 5 (44); col. 6, lines 44-51) and forming a bubble in the material between the at least one die and the calibrator to impart a simulated woodgrain appearance into the material (Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (30); Figures 4 and 5 (45); 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” and col. 2, lines 58-66 – color utilized for facilitating the appearance of wood).
Johnson does not explicitly teach the second portion of the material being introduced to the calibrator via an injection block, the injection block having at least one adjustable injector associated therewith, an injection height of a respective injector being adjustable relative to the injection block, each respective injector being configured to vary the depth at which the second portion of the material is fed into the first portion of the material.
However, Hill et al. teach an analogous method wherein colorants are introduced via an injection block with injectors into an analogous first portion of the material at different height locations relative to the injector and then feeding the combined material downstream as a second portion of material (Figures 1-4; col. 1, lines 25-34; col. 2, lines 14-25; col. 3, lines 17-26 and 54-58) and Walrath suggest an analogous method wherein the height of injectors are adjustable relative to the injector block to vary the depth of introduction of additional material into an analogous first portion of material (feeding fins (14); paragraphs [0024]- [0026]; Figures 2-12; paragraph [0028] – for producing lumber products).
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 teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. and to have introduced the second portion of the material being introduced to the calibrator via an injection block, the injection block having at least one adjustable injector associated therewith, an injection height of a respective injector being adjustable relative to the injection block, each respective injector being configured to vary the depth at which the second portion of the material is fed into the first portion of the material in the method 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 combination, the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are taken together to suggest a method that includes color injectors that are intended to inject color (e.g. as explicitly taught by Hill et al.) with injectors that are explicitly adjustable (e.g. as explicitly taught by Walrath et al.)
In the combination, element (22) of Johnson and element (17) of Hill et al. generally correspond with each other. Therefore, elements (21) and (23) of Hill et al. are suggested for addition downstream of element (22) in Johnson to introduce desired coloring materials to the extrudate of Johnson prior to forming bubble (30) (see Figure 1 of Johnson and Figure 1 of Hill et al.). With adjustability of the injectors explicitly taught and suggested by Walrath et al., each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the combination.
As to claim 2, Johnson teaches an extrusion gap/unconfined zone as claimed wherein the bubble is formed (Figure 1 (22) (23) (30); Abstract).
As to claim 3, Johnson establishes that the amount of space provided impacts the foaming of the material and the quality of the produced material (page 2, lines 44-80). As such, in designing and operating the system of Johnson, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have optimized the spacing between the die and the calibrator, including to a value within the claimed range, in order to effectively produce the desired foam product. Determining the claimed spacing is understood to be routine optimization and would have been readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II A and B).
As to claim 4, Johnson teaches and discloses that the bubble expands along an exit end of the at least one die and into the extrusion gap (Figure 1 (30); Figures 5 and 8 (43) and (45); Figure 14 (66)).
As to claim 5, Johnson teaches the bubble expands along an entry end of the calibrator and into the calibrator (Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (23) and (30); Figure 5 (45) and (48); Figure 14 (66)).
As to claims 6 and 7, Johnson teaches and discloses a top end and bottom end of the die and an exterior wall of the calibrator spaced from the entry end of the calibrator (Figure 1 (22) (23); also see col. 5, lines 1-30; col. 6, lines 44-60; col. 7, lines 60-65 – larger than the cross section of the nozzle/die; col. 9, lines 12-col. 10, line 16 – bubble size is also an optimized variable). From this, imaginary first and second planes can be defined that are “parallel with” the top and bottom ends and the exterior wall and that intersect the bubble of material (Figure 1). It is noted that the claim does not require the configuration shown in (Figure 6 (37) (41)) of the instant application. All that appears to be currently required is that some imaginary plane that is parallel to the defined portions be considered. The location of this plane can be arbitrary. It must only be parallel to the defined portions of the die and calibrator. The imaginary planes, for example, do not need to be located on/sitting on the top end and bottom end of the die and the exterior wall of the calibrator such that the bubble protrudes/extends above and below these portions of the equipment as shown in Figure 6.
Regarding claim 8, Johnson teaches method of forming an extrusion bubble in an extruded material comprising extruding a first portion of the material from an extruder to at least one die (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21) (22)); feeding a first portion of the material along the at least one die (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21) (22)); feeding the material along a calibrator (Figure 1 (23); Figure 5 (44); col. 6, lines 44-51); and forming a bubble in the material between the at least one die and the calibrator to impart a simulated woodgrain appearance into the material (Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (30); Figures 4 and 5 (45); 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” and col. 2, lines 58-66 – color utilized for facilitating the appearance of wood).
Johnson does not explicitly teach injecting a second portion of the material in a form of a colorant into the first portion of the material with at least one color injector in a pre-defined pattern, the second portion of the material being injected and thereby fed into the calibrator, the at least one color injector carried by an injection block, an injection height of a respective color injector being adjustable relative to the injection block via a threaded engagement therebetween, each respective color injector being configured to vary the depth at which the second portion of the material is fed into the first portion of the material.
However, Hill et al. teach an analogous method wherein colorants are introduced via an injection block in a pre-defined pattern with injectors into an analogous first portion of the material at different height locations relative to the injector and then feeding the combined material downstream as a second portion of material (Figures 1-4; col. 1, lines 25-34; col. 2, lines 14-25; col. 3, lines 17-26 and 54-58) and Walrath suggest an analogous method wherein the height of injectors are adjustable relative to the injector block to vary the depth of introduction of additional material into an analogous first portion of material (feeding fins (14); paragraphs [0024]- [0026]; Figures 2-12; paragraph [0028] – for producing lumber products).
As to the limitation directed to the adjustability being provided through a “threaded engagement”, Walrath et al. teach the fins are “adjustable (in and out) via a channel” (paragraph [0024]; claims 10 and 18) and Hill et al. teach the injection passages (24) terminate in tubular injection tips (26), which are attached to the block in any suitable manner (col. 3, lines 17-20). In combination, this reasonably suggests and renders a threaded connection as claimed prima facie obvious. A threaded connection is an extremely common and well-known method of engaging separate components. In the current context, the injectors suggested by Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are also adjustable. This suggestion further excludes other connection methods (e.g. welding; adhesive) and further demonstrates the suitability of a threaded connection to one having ordinary skill in the art.
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 teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. and to have injected a second portion of the material in a form of a colorant into the first portion of the material with at least one color injector in a pre-defined pattern, the second portion of the material being injected and thereby fed into the calibrator, the at least one color injector carried by an injection block, an injection height of a respective color injector being adjustable relative to the injection block via a threaded engagement therebetween, each respective color injector being configured to vary the depth at which the second portion of the material is fed into the first portion of the material in the method 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 combination, the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are taken together to suggest a method that includes color injectors that are intended to inject color (e.g. as explicitly taught by Hill et al.) with injectors that are explicitly adjustable (e.g. as explicitly taught by Walrath et al.)
In the combination, element (22) of Johnson and element (17) of Hill et al. generally correspond with each other. Therefore, elements (21) and (23) of Hill et al. are suggested for addition downstream of element (22) in Johnson to introduce desired coloring materials to the extrudate of Johnson prior to forming bubble (30) (see Figure 1 of Johnson and Figure 1 of Hill et al.). With adjustability of the injectors explicitly taught and suggested by Walrath et al., each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the combination.
As to claim 9, Johnson teaches an extrusion gap/unconfined zone as claimed wherein the bubble is formed (Figure 1 (22) (23) (30); Abstract).
As to claim 10, Johnson establishes that the amount of space provided impacts the foaming of the material and the quality of the produced material (page 2, lines 44-80). As such, in designing and operating the system of Johnson, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have optimized the spacing between the die and the calibrator, including to a value within the claimed range, in order to effectively produce the desired foam product. Determining the claimed spacing is understood to be routine optimization and would have been readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II A and B).
As to claim 11, Johnson teaches and discloses that the bubble expands along an exit end of the at least one die and into the extrusion gap (Figure 1 (30); Figures 5 and 8 (43) and (45); Figure 14 (66)).
As to claim 12, Johnson teaches the bubble expands along an entry end of the calibrator and into the calibrator (Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (23) and (30); Figure 5 (45) and (48); Figure 14 (66)).
As to claims 13 and 14, Johnson teaches and discloses a top end and bottom end of the die and an exterior wall of the calibrator spaced from the entry end of the calibrator (Figure 1 (22) (23); also see col. 5, lines 1-30; col. 6, lines 44-60; col. 7, lines 60-65 – larger than the cross section of the nozzle/die; col. 9, lines 12-col. 10, line 16 – bubble size is also an optimized variable). From this, imaginary first and second planes can be defined that are “parallel with” the top and bottom ends and the exterior wall and that intersect the bubble of material (Figure 1). It is noted that the claim does not require the configuration shown in (Figure 6 (37) (41)) of the instant application. All that appears to be currently required is that some imaginary plane that is parallel to the defined portions be considered. The location of this plane can be arbitrary. It must only be parallel to the defined portions of the die and calibrator. The imaginary planes, for example, do not need to be located on/sitting on the top end and bottom end of the die and the exterior wall of the calibrator such that the bubble protrudes/extends above and below these portions of the equipment as shown in Figure 6.
As to claim 16, in the combination, the injection block is downstream of the die and the injection block is upstream of the calibrator as claimed. The die in the combination is positioned immediately downstream of the extruder and corresponds with (17) in Hill et al. and (22) in Johnson. Downstream of this is the injection block which corresponds with elements (21) and (23) in Hill et al. and the calibrator of Johnson is located downstream of this injection block
As to claims 17-20, in the combination, the bubble of Johnson is produced downstream of the injection block, which is generally located at the outlet end of the die and upstream of the calibrator. In the combination, the teaching of Johnson as set forth in the rejection of claims 11-14 still applies with the colorant injection blocks of the secondary references provided for/located at their disclosed locations. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, Johnson teaches a method of forming an extrusion bubble in an extruded material comprising extruding the material from an extruder to at least one die (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21) (22)); feeding a first portion of the material along the at least one die (col. 4, lines 22-27; Figure 1 (20) (21) (22)); and forming a bubble in the material between the at least one die and a calibrator to impart a simulated woodgrain appearance into the material (Figure 1 (23); Figure 5 (44); col. 6, lines 44-51; Figure 1 (30); Figure 2 (30); Figures 4 and 5 (45); 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” and col. 2, lines 58-66 – color utilized for facilitating the appearance of wood).
Johnson does not explicitly teach feeding a second portion of the material along a calibrator with at least one injector, the at least one injector carried by an injection block, an injection height of a respective injector being adjustable relative to the injection block, each respective injector being configured to vary the depth at which the second portion of the material is fed into the first portion of the material; the second portion of the material being introduced after the first portion is fed along the at least one die and before forming the bubble between the at least one die and the calibrator.
However, Hill et al. teach an analogous method wherein colorants are introduced via an injection block with injectors into an analogous first portion of the material at different height locations relative to the injector and then feeding the combined material downstream as a second portion of material (Figures 1-4; col. 1, lines 25-34; col. 2, lines 14-25; col. 3, lines 17-26 and 54-58) and Walrath suggest an analogous method wherein the height of injectors are adjustable relative to the injector block to vary the depth of introduction of additional material into an analogous first portion of material (feeding fins (14); paragraphs [0024]- [0026]; Figures 2-12; paragraph [0028] – for producing lumber products).
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 teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. and to have fed a second portion of the material along a calibrator with at least one injector, the at least one injector carried by an injection block, an injection height of a respective injector being adjustable relative to the injection block, each respective injector being configured to vary the depth at which the second portion of the material is fed into the first portion of the material; the second portion of the material being introduced after the first portion is fed along the at least one die and before forming the bubble between the at least one die and the calibrator in the method 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 combination, the teaching of Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are taken together to suggest a method that includes color injectors that are intended to inject color (e.g. as explicitly taught by Hill et al.) with injectors that are explicitly adjustable (e.g. as explicitly taught by Walrath et al.)
In the combination, element (22) of Johnson and element (17) of Hill et al. generally correspond with each other. Therefore, elements (21) and (23) of Hill et al. are suggested for addition downstream of element (22) in Johnson to introduce desired coloring materials to the extrudate of Johnson prior to forming bubble (30) (see Figure 1 of Johnson and Figure 1 of Hill et al.). With adjustability of the injectors explicitly taught and suggested by Walrath et al., each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the previous section 112b rejections. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn. The amendment to claim 21 has overcome the section 102 rejection based upon Ledvina et al. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Ledvina et al. with Hill and Walrath have been fully considered and they are persuasive. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, as set forth above, a new ground of rejection has been made.
As to the additional argument directed to the new limitation in claim 8 suggesting the claimed “threaded” configuration overcomes the teaching and suggestion of Walrath, the argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Walrath et al. teach the fins are “adjustable (in and out) via a channel” (paragraph [0024]; claims 10 and 18) and Hill et al. teach the injection passages (24) terminate in tubular injection tips (26), which are attached to the block in any suitable manner (col. 3, lines 17-20). In combination, this reasonably suggests and renders a threaded connection as claimed prima facie obvious. Threaded connections are extremely common and a well-known method of engaging separate components that allow for adjustability. In the current context, the injectors suggested by Hill et al. and Walrath et al. are also adjustable. This suggestion further excludes other connection methods (e.g. welding or adhesive) which would not allow for adjustability and further demonstrates the suitability of a conventional threaded connection to one having ordinary skill in the art. The argued arcuate faces of fins (14) in Walrath et al. and the argument that making a threaded connection would require a major redesign such that it would constitute a change in principle of operation in Walrath et al. is not persuasive. The teaching of Walrath et al. is provided to suggest making the depth of entry into the extruded material adjustable. The coloring is added by Hill et al. in the combination and making the height of the tips (26) adjustable by providing a threaded engagement as claimed does not change a principle of operation or require a major redesign to the combination set forth in the rejection. It is maintained that providing position/height/depth adjustability via a threaded engagement is a routine expedient to one having ordinary skill in the art absent a showing of new or unexpected results associated with the selected threading engagement. In view of the combination of Johnson with Hill et al. and Walrath et al., each and every limitation of claim 8 is understood to be sufficiently taught and suggested such that the claim is properly rendered prima facie obvious.
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