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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 2, has been canceled. Claim 4 has been amended. Claims 1 and 3 – 12 are pending.
The amendment to claim 4 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action.
The translation of the Foreign Priority Document filed on November 10, 2025 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections that rely on Meherg et al. (2021/0180270).
The 35 USC 103 rejection to claims 5 – 7 and 10 over Gilardi and Fujiwara in further view of Chereau is withdrawn since Chereau is directed to adding limestone as an additive in a polymeric adhesive or film composition. Chereau does not disclose adding loose limestone particles into the infill layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “a mineral having calcium carbonate as a major component” in claim 1 is indefinite. A mineral is defined as an inorganic solid with a definite chemical composition. Hence a mineral can only consist of a single composition. Calcium would not be a major component but the only component. In this case, calcium carbonate is a mineral. Limestone is not a mineral, but instead a rock composed of calcium carbonate and other materials like clay, iron carbonate, and quartz. Hence, the claimed mineral by definition would not be able to be composed of any materials made form a mixture of components such as limestone. The claims are examined as if the claim recites the filler layer includes the water retaining layer and an mineral based material with calcium carbonate as a major component. This allows for the mineral based material to include limestone. It is noted that the disclosure is based on a translation from the original foreign document. The applicant should review the original disclosure and the translation for language that is properly supported to describe the mineral based materials in the invention. Claim 8 and 9 are similarly rejected. And claims 3 – 7 and 10 – 12 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1 or 9.
The phrase “wherein the filler layer includes a water retaining layer … and a mineral” in claim 1 is unclear. The filler layer includes the water retaining layer. It is unclear how the filler layer includes a separate layer described as the water retaining layer and the mineral. Does the water retaining layer need to form its own layer distinct from the mineral material, so that the two components of the filler layer are not intermixed? Is the water retaining layer formed as a continuous component within the filler layer and the mineral material is applied to surface of the water retaining layer? Are the porous materials that make up the water retaining layer joined together into a solid layer, or is it just loosely applied between the pile fibers to more a layer separate from the mineral materials? Or, is the water retaining layer loose particles mixed together with the mineral based materials? For purposes on examination, the water retaining layer is considered to be any solid layer or loose particle or fill material comprising a porous material and it can be separate or mixed with the mineral layer. Claims 3 – 7 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The term “the mineral” in claim 5 is indefinite. It is unclear if the term “the mineral” is referencing the mineral layer mentioned in claim 4 or the mineral in the infill layer mentioned in claim 1 or in these minerals are required to be the same material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha (10, 059,836).
Ha discloses an eco-friendly artificial turf comprising 8 to 15 wt % of bark powder excluding cinnamon powder, 8 to 15 wt % of zeolite, 3 to 8 wt % of lacquer powder or lacquer, 3 to 10 wt % of cinnamon powder, 15 to 25 wt % of calcium carbonate, 15 to 25 wt % of polyethylene, 15 to 25 wt % of at least one elastic material selected from the group consisting of SEBS, latex, and silicone rubber, and 5 to 15 wt % of oil (abstract). The eco-friendly infill is installed on a base layer of an artificial turf system to fill gaps between pile-fibers of the artificial turf (abstract). The bark powder or cinnamon powder is considered to be a plant-derived porous material.
Additionally, the eco-friendly infill can absorb and retain moisture (column 2, lines 50 – 55).
As shown in Figure 2, the eco-friendly infill is formed by mixing together the ingredients and then extrusion molded to produce granular eco-friendly infill (column 6, lines 25 – 55).
Thus, claims 1 , 3, 8, 9, and 11 are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilardi (2008/0299331) in view of Fujiwara et al. (JP 2011-084930).
Gilardi discloses an artificial turf structure comprising a substrate from which grass-resembling filaments project and a filling layer of an infill material arranged between the filaments (abstract and section [0012]). The infill material comprises a coconut-based vegetable material, in particular coco fiber and/or coco peat or other similar vegetable material in fibrous, ground and/or shredded form (abstract and sections [0014] and [0015]). The infill material is sprinkled onto the substrate between the filaments to form the filling layer (section [0028]).
The coconut-based infill material may comprise bark, shell, hull, pulp, fiber, and/or peat (section [0016]). The coconut-based infill material is naturally capable of absorbing and retaining water. In addition to the coconut-based infill material, other vegetable materials, such as bark of bushes and plants and/or natural fibers obtained from vegetables (e.g., sisal and hemp fibers) may be employed in the infill (section [0017]). The infill may consist of vegetable material or may comprise 10-90% by volume of said vegetable material (section [0018]). Other materials for use with the vegetable material include rigid particles, such as sand, wherein said sand may be mixed together or arranged in superimposed layers with the vegetable material (sections [0019] and [0024] and claim 6). Gilardi teaches that the infill preferably includes a rigid particulate material such as sand granules (paragraph 19).
While Gilardi teaches using rigid particles such as sand, Gilardi fails to teach using calcium carbonate based rigid particles. Fujiwara et al. is drawn to artificial turf with infill (abstract). Further, Fujiwara teaches that the artificial lawn includes hard granular particles, such as sand, between the turf leaves (this is considered to be equivalent to grass blades) to form a packed bed (page 2, Description of the First Artificial Lawn). Additionally, Fujiwara et al. teaches that other similar materials can be used as the hard granular particles including river sand, mountain sand and calcium carbonate (page 4, 3rd paragraph). Further, Fujiwara discloses that the hard granular material can be mixed with other infill materials (page 5, 6th paragraph ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the materials taught by Fujiwara et al. as hard granular infill materials, i.e., calcium carbonate, could be substituted the rigid particles mixed with the vegetable material taught by Gilardi. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the rejection is based on improper hindsight since there is not sufficient motivation in the prior art to add calcium carbonate to the infill material of Gilardi (response, pages 6 – 10). However, it is noted that Gilardi discloses the desire to add rigid particle such as sand into the infill. Thus, Fujiwara et al. does not need to provide a reason to use sand in the infill of Gilardi since Gilardi already teaches using sand. Therefore, Fujiwara et al. is relied on to teach types of known hard particles which can be used in an artificial turf infill. Fujiwara et al. teaches that other than silica sand, hard granular materials such as river sand, mountain sand or calcium carbonate can be used as a hard or rigid particle in an infill composition. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant argues that the Fujiwara et al. teaches away from the invention because it renders Fujiwara inoperable (response, page 10). However, Fujiwara et al. is the secondary reference in the rejection. Fujiwara et al. is not being modified, Gilardi is being modified. Thus, the combination, substituting calcium carbonate, as taught by Fujiwara, for sand taught by Gilardi cannot make Fujiwara inoperable because Fujiwara is not modified. And Fujiwara et al. cannot teach away from the combination of vegetable particles and sand particles because this combination is already taught by Gilardi. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 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, 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.
jlj
November 21, 2025
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789