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 .
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, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDanel et al in view of Aldahir et al as set forth at paragraph 8 in the previous office action (10/9/2025).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al in view of Aldahir et al and further in view of Koch et al as set forth at paragraph 9 in the previous office action.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al in view of Aldahir et al and further in view of Sutherland et al as set forth in paragraph 10 of the previous office action.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al in view of Aldahir et al and further in view of Cooley et al as set forth in paragraph 11 of the previous office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that McDaniel does not disclose sand as a core material, the examiner first notes that the sand is merely being claimed as loose, particulate material with the particles being coated with coating material. McDaniel discloses the loose particulate material can be finely divided mineral or finely divided mineral and fiber. The particle matter is bound by a suitable organic or inorganic binder (col 5 lines 67- col 6 lines 3). The finely divided mineral can include quartz sand (col 6 lines 22-23) so that sand is the core material as it is surrounded by suitable organic or inorganic binder. Applicant is arguing exemplary particles being disclosed in col 6 lines 40+ and col 41 lines 42-44. As disclosed in col 6 lines 22-23, sand is another exemplary filler particle that can be used. Therefore, McDaniel does teach the concept of using a sand as the loose, particulate material. McDaniel discloses a coating material coating material comprising a polymer chosen from a group of copolymers, and mixtures of the polymers (col 40 lines 62-column 41 line 8). The coupling agent comprises a silane (col 21 lines 32-40). Therefore, all three limitations are taught by McDaniel.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding secondary reference Aldahir, Aldahir was being used to teach the concept of PLA being a known biodegradable polymer and that it would have been obvious to use known materials based on the suitability of its intended use as set forth on p. 5 of the previous office action. See in re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). McDaniel does teach a variety of suitable materials can be used and McDaniel discloses that the specific goal of using a coating material for fill particles is to avoid leaking chemicals which might harm players using the sports field ( col 42 lines 14-17). Applicant needs to argue the combined teachings as the combined references teach the loose particulate material with a coating material and and a coupling agent as taught by McDaniel. The actual biodegradable polymer and methacrylate are taught by Aldahir.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm.
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, Gene Kim can be reached at 5712724463. 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.
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights