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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 30, 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al.
(US 5,232,751) in view of Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213).
Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) disclose a system for manufacturing a polymer-based sheet
material (figs. 1-3; col. 2, line 17, to col. 6, lines 64; vinyl sheet), comprising:
a core extrusion assembly comprising a first extruder 20 for extruding a core composition having
a first planar surface and a second planar surface (sheet has first and second planar surfaces); and
a cap extrusion assembly comprising:
a second extruder 18 for extruding a cap composition, the second extruder having a first end
and a second end with a set of temperature zones 38, 40, 42 between the first end and the second end
of the second extruder 18, wherein the second end is more proximate an extrusion die 24 than the first
end (fig. 1), and
a capstock inlet 32 for supplying the second extruder 18 the cap composition at the first end of
the second extruder 18 (fig. 1),
wherein a temperature of a first temperature zone of the set of temperature zones proximate
the first end is greater than a second temperature zone of the set of temperature zones, wherein the
second temperature zone is more proximate the second end (col. 3, lines 30-35; temperature within
extruder 18 is generally about 380 degrees F, although some zone-to-zone variation occur; in particular
the temperature at block member 22 is closer to about 340 degrees F; as shown in fig. 1, block member
22 is adjacent the second end, and thus it would be obvious, if not inherent, that the temperature of the
second end is close to or at 340 degrees F in order for the block member 22 to be about 340 degrees F;
thus, the temperature (generally about 380 degrees F) of a first temperature zone of the set of
temperature zones proximate the first end is greater than a second temperature zone of the set of
temperature zones, wherein the second temperature zone is more proximate the second end
(temperature zone proximate the die is close to or at about 340 degrees F, as mentioned above), wherein the temperature of the first temperature zone is at least 188°C (as mentioned above, the first temperature zone is 380°F (193.33°C)) and the temperature of the second temperature zone is at or below 181°C (as mentioned above, the second temperature zone is 340°F (171.11°C)). Furthermore, alternatively, Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) further discloses (col. 2, lines 41-48) that each temperature zone contains an integral, exterior heat member capable of achieving levels in excess of 425°F (218.33°C) and discloses (col. 3, lines 30-35) that some zone-to-zone temperature variations occur as are well known in the art, and thus the temperature zones are capable of achieving zone-to-zone temperature variations since each temperature zone has a separate heat member for heating the respective temperature zone to a desired temperature. Therefore, since each temperature zone can be separately controlled to an excess of 218.33°C, the system is capable of being operated wherein the temperature of the first temperature zone is at least 188°C and the temperature of the second temperature zone is at or below 181°C.
However, Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) do not disclose the capstock inlet being a capstock
hopper.
Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) disclose a system for manufacturing a polymer-based
sheet material (figs. 1-4A; [0023]-[0037]; polymer sheet material 10), comprising a cap extrusion
assembly comprising a capstock extruder 300a for extruding a cap composition, and a capstock hopper
306a for supplying the extruder 300a the cap composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the capstock inlet of Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) with a capstock hopper, as
disclosed by Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213), because such a modification is known in the art and
would provide an alternative configuration for supplying an extruder known to be operable in the art.
As to claim 11, Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) further disclose the core extrusion assembly
further comprises a first core inlet 46 for supplying the first extruder 20 the core composition at the first
end of the first extruder 20 (fig. 1). However, Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) do not disclose the first
core inlet being a first core hopper. Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) further disclose the system
comprising a core extrusion assembly comprising a first extruder 102 for extruding a core composition
and a first core hopper 156 for supplying the first extruder 102 the core composition (figs. 2, 3, 4A;
[0026]-[0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention
was made, to further modify the first core inlet of Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) with a first core
hopper, as disclosed by Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213), because such a modification is known in
the art and would provide an alternative configuration for supplying an extruder known to be operable
in the art.
As to claim 12, Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) further disclose the core extrusion
assembly comprising a second core hopper 164 for supplying the first extruder 102 a core variegation
composition to the first extruder 102 ([0050]-[0051], colors are added for appearance effects, the screw
segments 116 are selected to inhibit over mixing of the colorants 194; it would be obvious, if not
inherent, that less mixing (less than over mixing) would result in variations in color (variegation) from
the plurality of colorants to provide the appearance effects). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the core extrusion
assembly to further include a second core hopper for supplying the first extruder a core variegation
composition to the first extruder, as disclosed by Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213), because such a
modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the core extrusion
assembly capable of appearance effects.
As to claim 13, Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) further disclose the core composition comprises a
first polymeric mixture and additives (col. 3, lines 19-30). However, Cameron et al. US 5,232,751) does not disclose the additives including fillers. Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) further discloses the
core composition comprising a first polymeric mixture and a filler ([0042], fillers; [0048], base polymer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to
further modify the additives to include fillers, as disclosed by Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213),
because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the
core composition known to be operable in the art.
Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) further disclose:
(Claim 14) the first polymeric mixture comprises corestock (col. 3, lines 19-30, polyvinyl chloride
compound (PVC));
(Claim 15) wherein the first polymeric mixture further comprises an additive (col. 3, lines 19-30,
additives);
(Claim 16) wherein the cap composition comprises a second polymeric mixture and a variegating
agent (col. 3, line 19, to col. 4, line 49, PVC (polymer) and colorants (variegating agent));
(Claim 18) wherein the temperature of each temperature zone of the set of temperature zones
is in a range of 149°C and 195°C (col. 3, lines 30-35; about 340°F to generally about 380°F (about 171.1°C
to generally about 193.3°C)).
As to claim 17, Cameron et al. (US $5,232,751) further disclose the set of temperature zones of
the second extruder 18 for extruding the cap composition each contain a heat member capable of
achieving temperature levels in excess of 425 °F (218°C), and thus the system is capable of extruding a
variegating agent comprises a constituent polymer with an initial melting point in a range of between
161°C to 167°C. Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed
apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art
apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham,
2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); see MPEP 2114. "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the
apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of
material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the
claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937,
136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). See MPEP 2115. Further, Cameron et al. JS 5,232,751) discloses that the variegating agent is a colorant having a polymer base (col. 3, lines 52-63, acrylic colorants, methyl methacrylate base for the colorant). Thus, it would have been further obvious to modify the variegating agent to include a constituent polymer with an initial melting point in a range of between 161°C to 167°C because such a constituent polymer would have been found in finding operable polymers for the base polymer which enable the system to operate as intended in view of the colorant base polymer teachings of Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US
5,232,751) in view of Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) as applied to claims 10-18 above, and further
in view of Zehner (US 6,958,185).
Cameron et al. (US 5,232,751) and Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) do not disclose the
limitations of claim 19.
Zehner (US 6,958,185) discloses an extrusion assembly including an extruder 34, a hopper 32 for
suppling materials to the extruder 32 and a mixer 30 for supplying mixed materials to the hopper 32 (fig.
4; col. 8, lines 7-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the cap extrusion assembly to include a mixer for supplying mixed materials to
the capstock hopper, as disclosed by Zehner (US 6,958,185), because such a modification is known in the extrusion art and would provide an alternative configuration for the extrusion assembly known to be
operable in the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron et al. (US
5,232,751) in view of Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) as applied to claims 10-18 above, and further
in view of Zehner (US 6,958,185) and Johnson (US 7,270,470).
Cameron et al. US 5,232,751) and Przybylinski et al. (US 2010/0159213) do not disclose the
limitations of claim 20.
Zehner (US 6,958,185) discloses an extrusion assembly including an extruder 34, a hopper 32 for
suppling materials to the extruder 32 and a mixer 30 for supplying mixed materials to the hopper 32 (fig.
4; col. 8, lines 7-17).
Johnson (US 7,270,470) discloses a hopper 20, 30 for feeding materials to a processing
apparatus 102, wherein the hopper comprises an inner surface for holding the materials (see figure; Fig.
1), the inner surface having a plurality of protrusions 32 to allow increasing amounts of materials in the
hopper and to support the materials in the hopper up to an amount that does not permit detrimental
conglomeration of the materials (col. 2, lines 33-47; col. 4, lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the cap extrusion assembly to include a mixer for supplying mixed materials to
the capstock hopper, as disclosed by Zehner (US 6,958,185), because such a modification is known in
the extrusion art and would provide an alternative configuration for the extrusion assembly known to be
operable in the art; and to further modify the capstock hopper with an inner surface having a plurality of
protrusions, as recited by Johnson (US 7,270,470), because such a modification is known in the hopper
art and would provide an alternative configuration for the hopper capable of allowing increasing amounts of materials in the hopper and of supporting the materials in the hopper up to an amount that
does not permit detrimental conglomeration of the materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Applicant respectfully disagrees with the examiner's rejection and submits that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the specific temperature limitations now recited by amended claim 10. For example, Cameron does not disclose or suggest the specific decreasing temperature profile with the claimed temperature ranges as now recited by amended claim 10. At most, Cameron mentions that temperatures are "generally about 380° F." with some zone-to-zone variations and that "at block member 22 the temperature is closer to about 340° F.," this does not establish a systematic decreasing temperature profile from the first temperature zone to the second temperature zone as claimed. The reference to block member 22 being at a lower temperature does not teach or suggest the specific temperature limitations that the first temperature zone is at least 188°C and the second temperature zone is at or below 181°C.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cameron disclose such temperature ranges. See prior art rejections above.
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 JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights