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 § 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.
Claims 1, 8-15, 17, 19-20, 25-28, 30, 32 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knox (PG Pub. 2005/0129906).
Regarding claims 1 and 43, Knox discloses a geotextile cover system and synthetic turf cover system for erosion protection on sloped ground [Fig. 1-9 and Abstract] for use with closing and covering land surfaces comprising at least one backing sheet (0042 and Fig. 3) tufted with yarns (synthetic grass blades) 80 and 89 (Fig. 2-3) that extend above and from/through the backing sheet 81 (Fig. 3) as simulated grass blades having interstices therebetween and formed in spaced apart lines of tufts (Fig. 3 & 4D-the horizontal lines of tufts 80B spaced apart vertically from other lines of tufts 80B; 0042), adjacent lines of tufts defining water flow channels in the interstices (0031 and Fig. 3) each said line of tufts (Fig. 4D-the horizontal lines of tufts 80 B spaced apart vertically from other lines of tufts 80B) on a first predetermined spacing of the tufts and having a stepped tuft line first axis (Fig. 4D, Fig. 3 and 0031) and a spaced-apart tuft line second axis (Fig. 4D) of repeating spaced-apart tufts, said line of tufts (Fig. 4D) defined by repeating patterns of a first weft portion (Fig. 4D-the right most portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the bottom right corner towards the top left corner), a first warp portion (Fig. 4D-the right portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the top right corner towards the bottom left corner forming an angle with the first weft portion) disposed in a first direction at an angle to the first weft portion, a second weft portion (Fig. 4D-the portion of stitch pattern 97D immediately to the left of the first warp portion moving from the bottom right corner towards the top left corner), and a second warp portion (Fig. 4D-the left portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the top right corner towards the bottom left corner forming an angle with the second weft portion) in a second opposing direction at an angle to the second weft portion, each portion terminating in a tuft of yarn (80, Fig. 2-3) extending from a first face of the backing sheet (81, Fig. 3- the top surface of 81) as blades of simulated grass with interstices therebetween for receiving infill (0030), "A layer of infill 96 is disposed interstitially among the strands 80 on top of the backing layer 81"), said backing sheet (81, Fig. 3) porous for permitting water flow vertically through the tufted geotextile (24, Fig. 2-3), said tuft of a terminated warp portion of the line of tufts disposed proximate said tuft of a terminated weft portion of an adjacent line of tufts on a second predetermined spacing less than the first predetermined spacing (Fig. 4D); the tuft at the terminated weft portion of the adjacent line of tufts creates a diverter in the water flow channel between the adjacent lines of tufts for increasing water flow dwell and reducing water flow rate (Fig. 4D); the diverter ones of the tufts in the lines for resisting shear displacement and movement of the infill received in the interstices between adjacent tufts (Fig. 2-4) arising from granular flow loading forces for steeply sloped land site covering and closure applications. The synthetic grass blades are tufted into the backing sheet in a plurality of laterally offset, mutually aligned square wave patterns (Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 8, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the infill (0030), “A layer of infill 96 is disposed interstitially among the strands 80 on top of the backing layer 81") comprises a granular material (0057).
Regarding claim 9, the line of tufts define alternating first and second C-shaped tufting patterns with the first C-shaped tufting pattern in a first direction and the second C-shaped tufting pattern in a second opposing direction (Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 10, Knox discloses the modified geotextile cover system as recited in claim 9, wherein the tufts (80, Fig.2-3; 80B, Fig.4B) of the alternating first and second C-shaped tufting patterns define cells (Fig .4B - the cells created by the alternating C-shaped tuft
pattern) on an upper surface of the backing sheet (81, Fig.3) for receiving the infill (0030), "A layer of infill 96 is disposed interstitially among the strands 80 on top of the backing layer 81"), for tufts opposing displacement of the infill.
Regarding claim 11, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the first weft portion (Fig. 4D – the rightmost portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the bottom right corner towards the top left corner) and the second weft portion (Fig. 4D- the portion of stitch pattern 97D immediately to the left of the first warp portion moving from the bottom right corner towards the top left corner) are of an equal length (Fig. 4D - the portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length).
Regarding claim 12, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the first warp portion and the second warp portion are of an equal length (Fig. 4D - the portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length).
Regarding claim 13, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the first warp portion (Fig. 4D - the right portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the top right corner towards the bottom left corner) comprises a first segment and a second segment (Fig.4D - the upper and lower segment of the warp portion) each terminating in a tuft (80, Fig.2-3) extending upwardly from an opposing side of the backing sheet (81, Fig.3).
Regarding claim 14, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the first weft portion and the second weft portion are of an equal first length (Fig.4D - the portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length), the first warp portion and the second warp portion are of an equal second length (Fig.4D - the portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length), and the second length is substantially equal to the first length (Fig. 4D - the portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length).
Regarding claim 15, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 14, wherein the first warp portion and the second warp portion each comprises a first segment and a second segment (Fig.4D - the upper and lower segment of the warp portions) with each segment terminating in a tuft (80, Fig. 2-3) extending upwardly from an opposing side of the backing sheet (81, Fig.3).
Regarding claim 17, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein adjacent lines of tufts (Fig.4D – the horizontal lines of tufts 80B spaced apart vertically from other lines of tufts 80B; (0042)) have a tuft gauge (Fig.4D - the space between the lines of tufts; (0031)) for closely spacing an initiating apex of the first warp portion relative to the terminating apex of the first warp portion of the adjacent line for minimizing an interstitial gap between the adjacent tufts of the adjacent lines of tufting (Fig.4D -the gap between the adjacent tufts is minimized by the warp portions of stitch pattern 97D being aligned).
Regarding claim 19, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, in which the backing sheet (81, Fig.3) comprises two or more geotextile sheets (84, 86, 88, Fig.3; [0031], "The backing layer 81 preferably is a four part backing layer formed of an optional mesh layer 82 and a series 83 of backing layers 84, 86, 88"; [0034]) tufted together with polymeric yarns (80, Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 20, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the backing sheet (81, Fig.3) comprises a first geotextile (82, Fig.3) and a second geotextile (84, 86, 88, Fig.3; (0031), "The backing layer 81 preferably is a four part backing layer formed of an optional mesh layer 82 and a series 83 of backing layers 84, 86, 88"; (0034)) tufted together with a polymeric yarn (80, Fig.2-3) for defining the tufts extending from the first geotextile (82, Fig.3).
Regarding claim 25, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the tufts in the adjacent stepped rows (Fig.4D - the horizontal lines of tufts 80B spaced apart vertically from other lines of tufts 80B; (0042)) have a spacing gauge (Fig.4D -the space between the lines of tufts; (0031)) and spacing of adjacent rows to dispose tufts as a diverter structure in a water flow path between adjacent lines of tufts (Fig.4D - the spacing between the rows of tufts creates a diverter structure in a water flow path between adjacent lines of tufts).
Regarding claim 26, Knox discloses a cover system (Fig. 1-9; Abstract) with high shear
resistance for granular infill stability for covering sloped ground (0042), comprising: a geomembrane (52, Fig. 2; (0025); and a synthetic grass (24, Fig. 2-3) composite comprising a geotextile (24, Fig. 2-3) having a backing sheet (81, Fig. 3) with a plurality of spaced-apart tufts (80, Fig. 2-3) tufted with one or more synthetic yarns (80, Fig. 2-3) to form a plurality of elongated blades (89, Fig. 3 and 0037) extending therefrom, said tufts (80, Fig. 2-3) tufted in stepped first and second lines of repeating tufts (Fig. 4D- the horizontal lines of tufts 80B spaced apart vertically from other lines of tufts 80B; (0042) defined by a first weft portion (Fig. 4D - the rightmost portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the bottom right corner towards the top left corner), a first warp portion (Fig. 4D - the right portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the top right corner towards the bottom left corner forming an angle with the first weft portion) disposed in a first direction at an angle to the first weft portion, a second weft portion (Fig. 4D - the portion of stitch pattern 97D immediately to the left of the first warp portion moving from the bottom right corner towards the top left corner), and a second warp portion (Fig. 4D - the left portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the top right corner towards the bottom left comer forming an angle with the second weft portion) in a second opposing direction at an angle to the second weft portion, the tufts (80, Fig. 2-3) defining interstices therebetween from the geotextile (24, Fig. 2-3) to a fill plane defined by about a distal extent of the blades (89, Fig. 3), and porous for permitting water flow through the backing sheet (81, Fig. 3), to resist displacement and movement of the infill (0030); the tuft of a terminated warp portion of the line of tufts on a second predetermined spacing less than a first determined spacing less than the first predetermined spacing wherein the tuft at the terminated weft portion of the adjacent line of tufts creates a diverter in the water flow channel between the adjacent lines of tufts for increasing water flow dwell and reducing water flow rate therein and the diverter ones of the tufts in the lines of tufts to resist displacement and movement of the infill received in the interstices between adjacent tufts under loading (Fig. 3 and 4D). "A layer of infill 96 is disposed interstitially among the strands 80 on top of the backing layer 81 ") received in the interstices between adjacent tufts (Fig. 2-3) under loading, said cover system for overlying a ground surface (Fig. 2 and 0050) for covering purposes while resisting granular infill displacement in response to shear loading including water flow and dry granular flow of infill resulting from wind, seismic, and thermodynamics of the synthetic geotextile that results in wrinkles in the cover (Fig. 2 - the cover system covers the ground surface resist granular infill displacement).
Regarding claim 27, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, wherein the first warp portion (Fig. 4D - the right portion of stitch pattern 97D moving from the top right corner towards the bottom left corner) comprises a first segment and a second segment (Fig.4D - the upper and lower segment of the warp portion) each terminating in a tuft (Fig. 2-3) extending upwardly from the backing sheet (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, wherein the first weft portion and the second weft portion in the tufted geotextile are of a first length (Fig. 4D - the weft portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length) and the first warp portion and the second warp portion in the tufted geotextile are of a second length (Fig. 4D - the warp portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length).
Regarding claim 30, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, wherein adjacent lines of tufting (Fig. 4D - the horizontal lines of tufts 80B spaced apart vertically from other lines of tufts 80B; (0042)) have a tuft gauge (Fig. 4D - the space between the lines of tufts; (0031) for closely spacing an initiating apex of the first warp portion relative to the terminating apex of the first warp portion of the adjacent line for minimizing an interstitial gap between the adjacent tufts of the adjacent lines of tufting (Fig. 4D - the gap between the adjacent tufts is minimized by the warp portions of stitch pattern 97D being aligned).
Regarding claim 32, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, further comprising a second geotextile (84, 86, 88, Fig. 3 and 0031), "The backing layer 81 preferably is a four part backing layer formed of an optional mesh layer 82 and a series 83 of backing layers 84, 86, 88"; (0034) tufted to the first geotextile (82, Fig. 3).
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 9-10, 16, 18, 21-22, 29, 31 and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (PG Pub. 2005/0129906).
Regarding claim 9, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1. In case it is found Knox does not teach the limitations of claim 9, in a second embodiment, Knox teaches wherein said line of tufts (Fig.48 - the horizontal lines of tufts 80B spaced apart vertically from other lines of tufts 80B) defines alternating first and second C-shaped tufting patterns (Fig.4B - the alternating C-shaped tufting pattern 97B; 0042), said first C-shaped tufting patterns open in a first direction (Fig.4B -- the C-shape opening in the upward direction) and said second C-shaped tufting pattern open in a second opposing direction (Fig.48 - the second C-shape opening in the downward direction). It is known that combination of like
embodiments is an ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the stitch pattern of the second embodiment of Knox to modify how the infill is held with the geotextile cover system and to stop the infill from washing away, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 10, Knox discloses the modified geotextile cover system as recited in claim 9, wherein the tufts (80, Fig.2-3; 80B, Fig.48) of the alternating first and second C-shaped tufting patterns define cells (Fig .4B - the cells created by the alternating C-shaped tuft
pattern) on an upper surface of the backing sheet (81, Fig.3) for receiving the infill (0030), "A layer of infill 96 is disposed interstitially among the strands 80 on top of the backing layer 81"), for tufts opposing displacement of the infill.
Regarding claim 16, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, wherein the first weft portion and the second weft portion are of an equal first length (Fig.4D - the weft portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length), the first warp portion and the
second warp portion are of an equal second length (Fig.4D - the warp portions of stitch pattern 97D are the same length), but does not specifically teach the second length is greater than the first length. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the stitch length. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have modified the stitch length at specific portions to prevent infill from washing away, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 18, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the backing sheet has a basis weight of about 2 ounces per square yard to about 20 ounces per square yard. It is known that optimization of size,
shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the basis weight. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the basis weight to allow the cover system to be light and sturdy, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 21, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 20, but does not specifically teach wherein the first geotextile and a second geotextile each have a basis weight totaling about 2 ounces per square yard to about 20 ounces per square yard. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the basis weight. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the basis weight to allow the cover system to be light and sturdy, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 22, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 20, but does not specifically teach wherein the first geotextile and a second geotextile each have a basis weight of about 2 ounces per square yard to about 20 ounces per square yard. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the basis weight. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the basis weight to allow the cover system to be light and sturdy, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 29, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 28, but does not specifically teach wherein the second length is greater than the first length. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in
the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the stitch length. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the stitch length at specific portions to prevent infill from washing away, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 31, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the geotextile has a basis weight of at least about 2 ounces per square yard. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the basis weight. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have modified the basis weight to allow the cover system to be light and sturdy, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 33, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 32, but does not specifically teach wherein the first geotextile and the second geotextile each have a respective basis weight totaling about at least 2 ounces per square yard. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the basis weight. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the basis weight to allow the cover system to be light and sturdy, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 34, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 32, but does not specifically teach wherein the first geotextile and the second geotextile each have a basis weight of about at least 2 ounces per square yard. It is known that optimization of size,
shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the basis weight. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the basis weight to allow the cover system to be light and sturdy, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 35, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the tufts are tufted in a line with a tuft gauge of about 27 tufts per foot machine direction. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine
experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the tuft gauge. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have modified the tuft gauge to prevent infill from washing away, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 36, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach where adjacent tuft lines are spaced on about a 1/4 inch center tuft gauge. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an
ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the tuft gauge. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
the tuft gauge to prevent infill from washing away,' as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 37, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the geotextile has a tensile strength of about 800 pounds per foot to about 4,000 pounds per foot. II is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived modifying the tensile strength. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tensile strength to provide a durable cover system, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Claims 2-7 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (PG Pub. 2005/0129906) in view of Ayers (PG Pub. 2012/0230777)
Regarding claim 2, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 1, a geomembrane (52, Fig.2 and 0025), but does not specifically teach further comprising an impermeable geomembrane underlying the tufted geotextile for sealing closure of an overlaid
surface for land site covering purposes. However, Ayers teaches a geotextile cover system (Fig. 1-5B; Abstract) comprising an impermeable geomembrane (350, Fig. 3A-B and 0040), "The system 310 includes an impermeable geomembrane 350 and a synthetic turf 340") underlying the tufted geotextile (340, Fig. 3A) for sealing closure of an overlaid surface (S, Fig. 3A-B) for land site covering purposes (0040). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination discloses the modified geotextile cover system as recited in claim 2, the previous combination further teaches wherein the tufting (80, Fig. 3) defines bridge portions (Fig. 3 - the bridge portion of 80 under layer 90) on a bottom surface of the geotextile (24, Fig. 3), but does not specifically teach wherein the tufting defines bridge portions on a bottom surface of the geotextile that seat on the geomembrane to define a mechanical drainage for water now above the geomembrane. However, Ayers teaches a geotextile cover system (Fig. 1-5B and Abstract) comprising a mechanical drainage (Fig. 3B - the drainage channel between the bottom surface of the turf 340 and the top surface of the geomembrane 350) for water flow above the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3A-B and 0040), "The system 310 includes an impermeable geomembrane 350 and a synthetic turf 340"). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively create a mechanical drain.
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination disclose the modified geotextile cover system as recited in claim 3, but does not specifically teach wherein the surface of the geomembrane facing the tufted backing sheet is smooth. However, Ayers teaches wherein the surface of the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3B - the top surface of nubs 351-354 facing the backing sheet 342 is smooth) facing the tufted backing sheet (342, Fig. 3B) is smooth. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination disclose the modified geotextile cover system as recited in claim 3, but does not specifically teach wherein the surface of the geomembrane facing the tufted backing sheet is textured. However, Ayers teaches wherein the surface of the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3B - the top surface of 350 facing the backing sheet 342 is textured with nubs 351-354) facing the tufted backing sheet (342, Fig. 3B) is textured. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination disclose the modified geotextile cover system as recited in claim 3, but does not specifically teach wherein the surface of the geomembrane facing the tufted backing sheet further comprises a plurality of spaced-apart projecting members that engage the yarn bridges of the tufted backing sheet. However, Ayers teaches wherein the surface of the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3B- the top surface of 350 facing the backing sheet 342 is textured with nubs 351-354) facing the tufted backing sheet (342, Fig. 3B) further comprises a plurality of spaced-apart projecting members (351-354, Fig. 3B) that engage the yarn bridges (341, Fig. 38 and 0040) of the tufted backing sheet (342, Fig. 3B). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination disclose the modified geotextile cover system as recited in claim 6, but does not specifically teach wherein a second surface of the geomembrane opposing the surface comprises a plurality of spaced-apart second projecting members for engaging a ground surface. However, Ayers teaches wherein a second surface of the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3B - the bottom surface of 350 facing away from the backing sheet 342 is textured with spikes 357-359) opposing the surface comprises a plurality of spaced-apart
second projecting members (357, 359, Fig. 3B and 0040) for engaging a ground surface (S, Fig. 3B). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Regarding claim 38, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the geomembrane provides a frictional interface resistant to shear forces on the tufted geotextile. However, Ayers teaches a geotextile cover system (Fig. 1-5B and Abstract) comprising an impermeable geomembrane (350, Fig. 3A-B and 0040), "The system 310 includes an impermeable geomembrane 350 and a synthetic turf 340") underlying the tufted geotextile (340, Fig. 3A) for sealing closure of an overlaid surface (S, Fig. 3A-B) for land site covering purposes (0040), wherein the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3B) provides a frictional interface (351-354, Fig. 3B) resistant to shear forces on the tufted geotextile (340, Fig. 3A). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Regarding claim 39, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the geomembrane provides a mechanical interface relative to a ground surface for resisting sliding thereover. However, Ayers teaches a geotextile cover
system (Fig.1-58 and Abstract) comprising an impermeable geomembrane (350, Fig. 3A-B and 0040), ''The system 310 includes an impermeable geomembrane 350 and a synthetic turf 340") underlying the tufted geotextile (340, Fig. 3A) for sealing closure of an overlaid surface (S, Fig. 3A-B) for land site covering purposes (0040), wherein the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3B) provides a mechanical interface (357-359, Fig. 3B) relative to a ground surface (S, Fig. 3B and 0040) for resisting sliding thereover. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to
effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Regarding claim 40, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the geomembrane is selected from geomembranes having opposing textured surfaces, geomembranes having a first surface with a plurality of extending
projections, geomembranes having a first textured surface and an opposing surface with a plurality of extending projections, and geomembranes having opposing surfaces each with a respective plurality of extending projections for engaging a ground surface below and the textured geotextile above. However, Ayers teaches a geotextile cover system (Fig. 1-5B and Abstract) impermeable geomembrane (350, Fig. 3A-B and 0040). "The system 310 includes an impermeable geomembrane 350 and a synthetic turf 340") underlying the tufted geotextile (340, Fig. 3A) for sealing closure of an overlaid surface (S, Fig. 3A-B) for land site covering purposes
(0040), wherein the geomembrane (350, Fig. 3B) provides a mechanical interface (357-359, Fig. 3B) relative to a ground surface (S, Fig. 3B and 0040) for resisting sliding thereover. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used
the impermeable geomembrane of Ayers in the cover system of Knox to effectively anchor the cover system to the ground.
Claims 23-24 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (PG Pub. 2005/0129906) in view of Cooley (Pub. 2019/0161930).
Regarding claim 23, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 20, but does not specifically teach wherein the polymeric yarn includes UV resistant additives. However, Cooley teaches a cover system (Fig. 1-4 and Abstract) comprising a
polymeric yarn (22, Fig. 1-2) includes UV resistant additives (0035), "Preferably, the chemical composition of the synthetic grass blades 22 should be selected to be heat-resistant and UV-resistant to withstand exposure to sunlight, which generates heat in the blades and contains ultraviolet rays). and fire-retardant"), while Cooley does not use the term 'additives,' in order for the Cooley system to function as described, it either must be made of UV-resistant material, or have UV-resistant additives therein. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the material of Cooley, as an additive, or the additives of Cooley, in the polymeric yarn of Knox to effectively protect the cover system from UV radiation.
Regarding claim 24, Knox discloses the geotextile cover system as recited in claim 20, but does not specifically teach wherein the polymeric yarn includes fire resistant additives. However, Cooley teaches a cover system (Fig. 1-4 and Abstract) comprising a polymeric yarn (22, Fig. 1-2) includes fire resistant additives (0035), "Preferably, the chemical composition of the synthetic grass blades 22 should be selected to be heat-resistant and UV-resistant to withstand exposure to sunlight, which generates heat in the blades and contains ultraviolet rays), and fire-retardant"), while Cooley does not use the term 'additives,' in order for the Cooley
system to function as described, it either must be made of fire-resistant material, or have fire resistant additives therein. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the material of Cooley, as an additive, or the additives of Cooley, in the polymeric yarn of KNOX to effectively protect the cover system from fire.
Regarding claim 41, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the polymeric yams include UV resistant additives. However, Cooley teaches a cover system (Fig. 1-4 and Abstract) comprising a polymeric yarn (22,
Fig. 1-2) includes UV resistant additives (0035), "Preferably, the chemical composition of the synthetic grass blades 22 should be selected to be heat-resistant and UV-resistant to withstand exposure to sunlight, which generates heat in the blades and contains ultraviolet rays), and fire-retardant"), while Cooley does not use the term 'additives,' in order for the Cooley system to function as described, it either must be made of UV-resistant material, or have UV-resistant additives therein. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the material of Cooley, as an additive, or the additives of Cooley, in the polymeric yarn of Knox to effectively protect the cover system from UV radiation.
Regarding claim 42, Knox discloses the cover system as recited in claim 26, but does not specifically teach wherein the geotextile has a fire retardant additive. However, Cooley teaches a cover system (Fig. 1-4 and Abstract) comprising a polymeric yarn (22, Fig. 1-2)
includes fire resistant additives (0035), "Preferably, the chemical composition of the synthetic grass blades 22 should be selected to be heat-resistant and UV-resistant to withstand exposure to sunlight, which generates heat in the blades and contains ultraviolet rays), and fire-retardant"), while Cooley does not use the term 'additives,' in order for the Cooley system to function as described, it either must be made of fire-resistant material, or have fire-resistant additives therein. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the material of Cooley, as an additive, or the additives of Cooley, in the polymeric yarn
of Knox to effectively protect the cover system from fire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Knox does not teach a terminating tuft of the warp portion proximate a tuft of a terminated weft portion of an adjacent line of tufts on a second spacing less than the first
spacing and argues the tuft are spaced part on a first spacing laterally aligned. It is first noted that Applicant is arguing limitations that are different than what is presently claimed. Claim 1 actually recites “…tuft of a terminated warp portion of the line of tufts disposed proximate said tuft of a terminated weft portion of an adjacent line of tufts on a second predetermined spacing less than the first predetermined spacing”. Below Fig. 4D of Knox is reproduced to identify where this is taught.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Terminating portion of warp portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Terminating portion of warp portion)][AltContent: textbox (First
Spacing)][AltContent: textbox (First
Spacing)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
237
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
631
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The second predetermined spacing is less than the first predetermined spacing.
Applicant argues Knox does not contemplate the problem solved by the present invention. As set forth in MPEP 2144 IV, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art not Used, but Relevant
PG Pub. 2015/0147492 teaches artificial turf with a backing and synthetic blades used in a pattern.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 on 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights