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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed April 16, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8 and 21 are currently amended. 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 two adjustable injectors associated therewith, the injectors being configured to introduce simultaneously a respective amount of the second portion of the material via the injection block, each respective injector being configured to fee the amount via at least one of a gravity feed or a pressurized feed, 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) wherein the injection occurs simultaneously (Figures 2 and 4, where portions of (36) overlap at locations to provide the color to the article in overlapping portions – where portions (36) overlap, the color is fed simultaneously), via a pressurized feed provided by the color adding extrusion system of Figure 2 feeding the colorant into the Figure 1 extrusion system 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, the injection block having at least two adjustable injectors associated therewith, the injectors being configured to introduce simultaneously a respective amount of the second portion of the material via the injection block, each respective injector being configured to fee the amount via at least one of a gravity feed or a pressurized feed, 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), wherein the injection occurs simultaneously (Figures 2 and 4, where portions of (36) overlap at locations to provide the color to the article in overlapping portions – where portions (36) overlap, the color is fed simultaneously), via a pressurized feed provided by the color adding extrusion system of Figure 2 feeding the colorant into the Figure 1 extrusion system 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, the injection block having at least two adjustable injectors associated therewith, the injectors being configured to introduce simultaneously a respective amount of the second portion of the material via the injection block, each respective injector being configured to fee the amount via at least one of a gravity feed or a pressurized feed, 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) wherein the injection occurs simultaneously (Figures 2 and 4, where portions of (36) overlap at locations to provide the color to the article in overlapping portions – where portions (36) overlap, the color is fed simultaneously), via a pressurized feed provided by the color adding extrusion system of Figure 2 feeding the colorant into the Figure 1 extrusion system 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 April 16, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The examiner agrees with the comment on page 9 where it is stated that “the Hill et al. reference is not configured to continuously inject a supply of colorant simultaneously from each color injector”. The nature of the Hill et al. allows for continuous injection overall and it separately allows for simultaneous injection from more than one injector at positions where the injectors overlap (see the overlapping portions of some of the apertures (36) around the circumference of sleeve (32) where material would be flowing into more than one of the aperture (36) openings down to different passages (24) at the same time), but it does not allow for both continuous and simultaneous from each injector at the same time. However, this statement is not commensurate in scope with the amended language set forth in the claims because the claim does not require both continuous and simultaneous injection from two or more injectors. The claims require simultaneous injection from at least two injectors. However, the claim does not also require that this happens continuously. As such, based on the overlapping portions of (36) as shown in Figure 2 that produce a structure similar to that shown in Figure 4, the teaching of Hill et al. is still understood to be applicable to the claimed invention because the injection is simultaneous from at least two injectors for a period of time during rotation of sleeve (32).
As to the limitation directed to a gravity or pressurized feed, the injectors of Hill et al. provide the feed as a pressurized feed from the extruder shown in Figure 2 into the system of Figure 1 and that teaching remains applicable to the claims. While Walrath does not feed the injectors with a pressurized hose or a hopper, it is not required in the combination with Hill et al. In the combination set forth in the instant application, the teaching of Walrath is not relied upon for the manner of feeding, but is only utilized for providing additional clarity, specificity, and teaching regarding the adjustability of the injectors as set forth above. By comparison, related application 18/409,918 has set forth a combination based upon Johnson in view of Hill and/or Walrath. In that application with claims directed to a system, not a method, the applicability of Hill alone, Walrath alone, and Hill and Walrath taken together, have to be considered in combination with Johnson. As such, in the ‘918 application such an amendment would overcome the teaching of the rejection that relies upon Walrath as a secondary reference alone (i.e. Johnson in view of Walrath alone) as was set forth in the March 16, 2026 Office Action. The facts are different in the instant application as set forth above and the rejection is understood to remain applicable even though Walrath feeds the material in a different manner than argued. It is further noted that the claim does not specify a hopper or a pressurized hose as argued, but gravity feed or a pressurized feed. The difference in language is noted and it is submitted that, to the extent it could be considered necessary, the material in Walrath et al. is fed by gravity (e.g. gravity is working on the material being fed, at least from the top, injectors (14)) and that the scopes of being fed by “gravity” or “a hopper” are not the same.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights