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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/15/25 has been entered.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not provide support for the limitation that a portion of the non-woven construction in the absence of a channel exhibits the claimed permeability.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9-15, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0315816 in view of Van der Wende, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0345676.
With regard to the composition of the nonwoven pad, Fowler discloses a nonwoven fiber pad. See paragraph 0075. The nonwoven pad can be prepared from any fibrous reclaimed turf material described in Fowler. See paragraph 0007. For example, polymeric turf fibers, bicomponent fibers, (paragraph 00831), infill, face layer and backing layer, (see paragraph 0111) are all examples of the reclaimed turf materials. The face fibers can be polyethylene fibers. See paragraph 0028. The fiber pad can comprise a nonwoven material comprising nylon, polyester, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, PVC, PET, SBR, polylactic acid and other biodegradable fibers in combination with a low melting binder. See paragraphs 0075 and 0077. Thus, Fowler teaches that the nonwoven pad can include at least three reclaimed artificial turf material, (the face fibers, the backing layer fibers and the infill as claimed).
Fowler further teaches that the nonwoven can include bicomponent fibers. See paragraphs 0081-0083. Since the nonwoven can comprise binder fibers in the amount of 0-80% of the total amount of the pad, (see paragraph 0085), and the pads are prepared from fibrous reclaimed turf material, if the binder fibers are present in an amount of 0-80%, the remaining fibers, including the claimed performance additive as well as the three reclaimed artificial turf materials would be present in amounts of 100-20% which would overlap with the claimed range of 5-40% for the performance additive. Note that the claimed fibers of polypropylene, polyester, nylon or a combination are all listed as being among the fibers typically found in the reclaimed turf material. See paragraphs 0075 and 0077. Thus, for example, the bicomponent fibers could be present in an amount of 20%, the three reclaimed materials could be present in an amount of 70 % and the remaining fibers which correspond to the claimed performance additive fibers could be present in an amount of 10%.
The instant claims positively recite that at least three reclaimed artificial turf materials are present in the nonwoven, and that he performance additive is the virgin fiber of polypropylene, polyester or nylon.
However, as set forth above, the nonwoven of Fowler which includes additional types of reclaimed fibers would produce a composition having 20-100 wt percent of the combination of the reclaimed materials specifically recited in claim 1, as well as additional reclaimed materials including the particular types of fibers claimed as performance additives. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to select the optimum amounts of each type of reclaimed material through the process of routine experimentation within the general ranges taught by Fowler of 20-100 wt percent of material excluding the bicomponent fibers.
Additionally, with regard to whether the reclaimed fibers are virgin or reclaimed, Fowler teaches at paragraphs 0039 that utilizing the reclaimed fibers allows for the reclaimed fibers to be substituted for virgin fibers in order to reduce waste and negative impacts on the environment. However, it is clear that it was also known to form such materials as airlaid nonwovens from virgin fibers as shown by the discussion in Fowler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used some or all virgin fibers for the fibers in Fowler if reclaimed fibers were not available or if a particular type of fibers, such as all polyester, all polypropylene, all polyethylene etc., was desired in the final product. Further, it would have been obvious to have selected virgin fibers which were compatible with the fibers already present in the reclaimed materials such as polyolefins, polyesters and nylons.
Additionally, Applicants' specification does not set forth any characteristics which necessarily differentiate "virgin" fibers from "reclaimed" fibers or any other fiber, such that the recitation of "virgin" or "reclaimed" imputes certain unique characteristics or properties to claimed fibers, other than indicating the source of the fibers. Therefore, the recitation of "virgin" and "reclaimed" only appears to be directed to the intermediate product or source of the material which is eventually used in the claimed invention. The recitation of fibers in the prior art combination appears to meet the limitations of the claim.
The fibers can have deniers of from 1-1500. The pads can have a thickness of 0.1-7 inches, a weight of 5-100 osy, a density of 0.5-25 pounds per cubic foot. See paragraph 0088-0089. The pad can be combined with a face layer made from the claimed materials which corresponds to the claimed scrim which can be applied to the front or back face. See paragraph 0091-0092. The pad can be needled punched and combined with another substrate. See paragraph 0094. The pad can be combined with a thermoplastic foam. See paragraph 0095. The pad can be processed to form an integrated raised pile. See paragraph 0096. The pads can be formed as sports field underlayments and can comprise infill such as granules, tufts and ribbons. See paragraphs 0098-0100. The pads can further comprise additional filler such as calcium carbonate, mica, fiberglass, wood, wollastonite, taco, rubber, other minerals and ground recycled materials. See paragraph 0110. The structures can have any shape and size. See paragraph 0121. The pads can be combined with additional layers and needle punched through either the front or back face to form a pile surface on the opposite face. See paragraph 0096.
With regard to the claims as amended 8/15/25, Fowler teaches incorporating reclaimed fibers from carpet into the structures formed by Fowler in amounts suitable to provide good binding of the components, (see paragraph 0086). Fowler also teaches at paragraph 0111 that the reclaimed synthetic turf material which is used in the structures of Fowler can be obtained from various components parts of prior manufactured carpet product, including face layer, adhesive layer, precoat layer, backing layer, secondary baking layer, underlayment, cushioning material, infill material or scrim. Further, with regard to the particular proportions of each component, it would have been obvious to have selected the particular proportions of the various components which produced a nonwoven having the desired properties such as loft, strength, resilience, etc. With regard to the “low-melt” bicomponent fibers, it is noted that Fowler teaches employing bicomponent fibers and that bicomponent fibers generally comprise a lower melting and higher melting component, wherein the lower melting component acts as a binder and the higher melting component maintains the structure of the fiber in the final product.
Fowler differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach the claimed vertical water drainage capability.
With regard to the vertical water drainage capability, Van der Wende discloses providing a plurality of drainage holes through an artificial turf assembly in order to allow or liquid such as rain to drain in the horizontal and vertical directions. See paragraph 0003.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of drainage holes in the assembly of Fowler including the nonwoven in order to provide the desired drainage.
With regard to the drainage of the particular portions of the structure which do not include channels, it would have been obvious to have selected the structure of the nonwoven which provided the best drainage of the mat overall.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0315816 in view of Van der Wende, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0345676 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Sawyer et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0203425.
Fowler differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the claimed resiliency and cushioning properties.
However, with regard to the resiliency and cushioning properties, Sawyer teaches optimizing the resiliency and cushioning properties of the pad such as Gmax and Head Impact criterion as well as water drainage by selecting the type and size of the infill and underlayment in order to provide a pad having the desired cushioning properties and water drainage. See entire document especially paragraphs 0050—0073.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the types and sizes of the infill and underlayment as taught by Sawyer in order to provide a structure having the desired cushioning properties and water drainage.
Claim(s) 16-7, 9-16, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0315816 in view of Ayers et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0360162.
With regard to the composition of the nonwoven pad, Fowler discloses a nonwoven fiber pad. See paragraph 0075. The nonwoven pad can be prepared from any fibrous reclaimed turf material described in Fowler. See paragraph 0007. For example, polymeric turf fibers, bicomponent fibers, (paragraph 00831), infill, face layer and backing layer, (see paragraph 0111) are all examples of the reclaimed turf materials. The face fibers can be polyethylene fibers. See paragraph 0028. The fiber pad can comprise a nonwoven material comprising nylon, polyester, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, PVC, PET, SBR, polylactic acid and other biodegradable fibers in combination with a low melting binder. See paragraphs 0075 and 0077. Thus, Fowler teaches that the nonwoven pad can include at least three reclaimed artificial turf material, (the face fibers, the backing layer fibers and the infill as claimed).
Fowler further teaches that the nonwoven can include bicomponent fibers. See paragraphs 0081-0083. Since the nonwoven can comprise binder fibers in the amount of 0-80% of the total amount of the pad, (see paragraph 0085), and the pads are prepared from fibrous reclaimed turf material, if the binder fibers are present in an amount of 0-80%, the remaining fibers, including the claimed performance additive as well as the three reclaimed artificial turf materials would be present in amounts of 100-20% which would overlap with the claimed range of 5-40% for the performance additive. Note that the claimed fibers of polypropylene, polyester, nylon or a combination are all listed as being among the fibers typically found in the reclaimed turf material. See paragraphs 0075 and 0077. Thus, for example, the bicomponent fibers could be present in an amount of 20%, the three reclaimed materials could be present in an amount of 70 % and the remaining fibers which correspond to the claimed performance additive fibers could be present in an amount of 10%.
The instant claims positively recite that at least three reclaimed artificial turf materials are present in the nonwoven, and that he performance additive is the virgin fiber of polypropylene, polyester or nylon.
However, as set forth above, the nonwoven of Fowler which includes additional types of reclaimed fibers would produce a composition having 20-100 wt percent of the combination of the reclaimed materials specifically recited in claim 1, as well as additional reclaimed materials including the particular types of fibers claimed as performance additives. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to select the optimum amounts of each type of reclaimed material through the process of routine experimentation within the general ranges taught by Fowler of 20-100 wt percent of material excluding the bicomponent fibers.
Additionally, with regard to whether the reclaimed fibers are virgin or reclaimed, Fowler teaches at paragraphs 0039 that utilizing the reclaimed fibers allows for the reclaimed fibers to be substituted for virgin fibers in order to reduce waste and negative impacts on the environment. However, it is clear that it was also known to form such materials as airlaid nonwovens from virgin fibers as shown by the discussion in Fowler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used some or all virgin fibers for the fibers in Fowler if reclaimed fibers were not available or if a particular type of fibers, such as all polyester, all polypropylene, all polyethylene etc., was desired in the final product. Further, it would have been obvious to have selected virgin fibers which were compatible with the fibers already present in the reclaimed materials such as polyolefins, polyesters and nylons.
Additionally, Applicants' specification does not set forth any characteristics which necessarily differentiate "virgin" fibers from "reclaimed" fibers or any other fiber, such that the recitation of "virgin" or "reclaimed" imputes certain unique characteristics or properties to claimed fibers, other than indicating the source of the fibers. Therefore, the recitation of "virgin" and "reclaimed" only appears to be directed to the intermediate product or source of the material which is eventually used in the claimed invention. The recitation of fibers in the prior art combination appears to meet the limitations of the claim.
The fibers can have deniers of from 1-1500. The pads can have a thickness of 0.1-7 inches, a weight of 5-100 osy, a density of 0.5-25 pounds per cubic foot. See paragraph 0088-0089. The pad can be combined with a face layer made from the claimed materials which corresponds to the claimed scrim which can be applied to the front or back face. See paragraph 0091-0092. The pad can be needled punched and combined with another substrate. See paragraph 0094. The pad can be combined with a thermoplastic foam. See paragraph 0095. The pad can be processed to form an integrated raised pile. See paragraph 0096. The pads can be formed as sports field underlayments and can comprise infill such as granules, tufts and ribbons. See paragraphs 0098-0100. The pads can further comprise additional filler such as calcium carbonate, mica, fiberglass, wood, wollastonite, taco, rubber, other minerals and ground recycled materials. See paragraph 0110. The structures can have any shape and size. See paragraph 0121. The pads can be combined with additional layers and needle punched through either the front or back face to form a pile surface on the opposite face. See paragraph 0096.
Fowler differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach the claimed vertical water drainage capability.
With regard to the vertical water drainage capability. Ayers teaches employing permeable nonwoven fabrics in combination with artificial turf in order to provide drainage to the structure. See abstract as well as claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the nonwoven in Fowler with a nonwoven having the desired drainage properties as taught by Ayers in order to provide a structure having the desired water drainage.
With regard to where the vertical water drainage is measured relative to any channels in the nonwoven, it would have been obvious to have measured the vertical water drainage capacity of the sheet as a whole, and not in areas which only included channels, in order to provide an accurate measurement.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0315816 in view of Ayers et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/030162 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Sawyer et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0203425.
Fowler differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the claimed resiliency and cushioning properties.
However, with regard to the resiliency and cushioning properties, Sawyer teaches optimizing the resiliency and cushioning properties of the pad such as Gmax and Head Impact criterion as well as water drainage by selecting the type and size of the infill and underlayment in order to provide a pad having the desired cushioning properties and water drainage. See entire document especially paragraphs 0050—0073.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the types and sizes of the infill and underlayment as taught by Sawyer in order to provide a structure having the desired cushioning properties and water drainage.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Fowler does not teach using reclaimed carpet material to form the nonwoven fiber pads. However, Fowler teaches at paragraph 0111 that the reclaimed synthetic turf material can be obtained from various component parts of prior manufactured carpet product. Therefore, since Fowler teaches that reclaimed synthetic turf material can include the reclaimed carpet products, Fowler discloses and/or it would have been obvious to have used the reclaimed carpet products in all of the embodiments in which reclaimed synthetic turf is used, since Fowler teaches that it is a type of reclaimed synthetic turf at paragraph 0111.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching of using at least three reclaimed artificial turf materials as claimed. However, as set forth above, Fowler teaches that the reclaimed material can include polyethylene face fibers, see paragraph 0028. Thus, Fowler teaches polyethylene face fibers in the shock absorbing pad.
Fowler discloses at paragraph 0075 that reclaimed turf material can be used to manufacture non-woven fiber pads and fiber batts. The method can comprise using “reclaimed synthetic turf” to manufacture a fiber pad and can comprise reclaiming one or more synthetic turf materials. See paragraph 0075. Note that paragraphs 0034-0035 define “reclaimed synthetic turf” as any material obtained from a prior manufactured synthetic turf product. Further, paragraph 0111 teaches that the reclaimed synthetic turf material can be obtained from various components part of prior manufactured carpet products. The reclaimed synthetic turf material can, for example, be face fiber material, primary backing material, primary coating material, secondary coating material, secondary backing material, filler, infill material, or any combination thereof. Since paragraph 0075 teaches employing “reclaimed turf material” and reclaimed turf material can include any of face fiber material, primary backing material, primary coating material, secondary coating material, secondary backing material, filler, infill material, previously manufactured carpet product or any combination thereof, the nonwoven pad of Fowler can include previously manufactured carpet products.
Additionally, since Fowler teaches employing the above materials in a range of 100-20%, the person of ordinary skill would have been able to select the optimum or workable amounts of each component within the broad range taught by Fowler, because Fowler teaches that the materials can be any combination of the disclosed materialsApplicant argues that since there is support for the permeability and there is support for channels, there is also support for the permeability in the lack of channels. However, the specification teaches a particular permeability, but does not specify if that permeability is achieved in the presence or absence of the channels.
Fowler teaches at paragraph 0020, that virgin fibers can be added to the structure.
Finally, since anywhere from 20-100% of the structure can be other fibers than binder fibers, and Fowler teaches that both virgin fibers, (paragraph 0020), and reclaimed fibers can be added, one of ordinary skill would have been able to select relative proportions in order to provide a structure which had the desired composition and was economical and environmentally friendly.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789