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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment submitted on May 19, 2025, has been entered. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 12 - 15 have been amended and no claims have been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 - 15.
The cancelation of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 renders moot the rejections to those claims set forth in the previous Office Action.
The amendment to claim 9 is sufficient to overcome the objection to the claim set forth in section 3 of the previous Office Action.
The amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to define the term “effective amount” in claim 1, but the claim has not been sufficiently amended to define each use of “effective” as set forth below.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to withdraw the 35 USC 112 rejections to the use of broad and narrow ranges within the same claim for claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 12.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection to the term “preferably”.
The amendment to the dependent claim of claim 12 and 13 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection set forth in section 15 of the previous Office Action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 19, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Application 17/842,167 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the polymer mixture is a mixture of LDPE, and LLDPE” is grammatically awkward since it includes a comma after LDPE. The mixture only has two components and does not need a comma between “LDPE” and “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “having at least one of curl, or wave shape” is grammatically awkward since it includes a comma after “curl”. The list only has two components and does not need a comma between “curl” and “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 – 15 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 phrases “the anti-slip agent has an effective rate of migration” and “to provide an effective reduction of the fiber friction coefficient” in claim 1 is indefinite. The term “effective” is not defined in the claim so that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what amount of migration is allowed or not and how much the friction on the surface of the turf must be reduced to meet the claim requirement. What migration is desired in the final product? What amount of reduction is required in the final product or what amount of friction coefficient does the fiber need to have to meet the claim limitation? Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 - 15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
The phrase at least 30% of the part of the length of the fibers which extend above an infill material having at least one of curl, or wave shape” in claim 12 is indefinite. How is the length of a curl or wave measured? Would any part of the fiber that is not straight count as curled or wave shape? If the whole tuft fiber has been treated to create curls or waves by a texturizing process wouldn’t the entire tuft fiber be curled or wavy so that 100% of the fiber above the infill is curled or wavy? Or is the applicant only defining a certain portion of the texturized fiber as a curl or wavy portion? How is that distinguish from the other portions of the fiber. Further, the applicant only indirectly references an infill in claim 12. The turf is not required to have an infill but only a backing and the tufted fibers. Hence, the claim include a tufted backing without an infill. Thus, the infill material recited in claim 12 is not considered a positively recited feature of the artificial turf, and the measurement is based on the fiber portion above the backing or other material covering the bottom of the tufts.
Claim 12 is indefinite. The claim recites that the fibers are texturized and the density of the fibers is at least 60%. It is unclear what density is being measured and how it is calculated. Is the applicant measuring the amount of texturized fibers per total fibers? Is the applicant measuring the amount of surface area being covered by the turf fibers, or in other words, the number of fibers per unit area? Density is defined as a weight or mass per unit volume. Is the density related to the number of fibers or the weight of fibers per volume? Is the volume determined by the unit area covered by the surface or the unit volume filled by the fibers? Further, the claim states the density of the fibers is at least 60%. How is 60% related to a mass per a unit volume. It is unclear what density is being used to determine and how that amount is being calculated. For purposes of examination, the claim is considered to require texturized fibers with curls above an infill.
Claim 14 is indefinite since the claim is drawn to a method of using the artificial turf, but the claim fails to recite any positive method steps. The US statute allows for methods of using a product or product claims. The preamble recited in claim 14 “The use of an artificial turf” does not fall into either statutory class. If the applicant wishes to claim the method of using the turf as a soccer field, the claim should also include method steps reciting how the turf is manipulated to be used as a soccer field.
Claim 15 is indefinite since the claim only fails to add any structural features to the turf of claim 12 to further limit the claim. The recitation that the field is a soccer field or that ankle injuries are reduced do not change the structure of the turf recited in claim 12. These limitations are related to how a person uses the field and not the structural features of the field itself.
Definition of Terms
It is noted that absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention."). It is not clear in the disclosure that additional components such as other olefin polymers or other additive will change the basic characteristics of the claimed polymer. Thus, the term is open to including any additional components such as other olefins or block copolymers.
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, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (EP 2 374 917 A1) in view of Alvarez (WO 2020/142230).
Martin et al discloses an artificial turf comprising LLDPE and additives such as fatty acid amides such as stearic acid, oleic acid or erucic acid amides which are added to the polymer melt in amounts of 0.05-5 wt% (paragraph 58). The yarn can be combined with a backing substrate such as by tufting (paragraphs 60-61). The backing can have a basis weight of 25-150 gsm (paragraph 74).
Martin discloses that the artificial turf is used as a sports field (paragraph 1). The limitation that the field is specifically a soccer or rugby field is considered to be intended use of what can be played on the turf field and is not considered to require any specific structural limitations in the claimed fiber. The field disclosed by Martin would produce an artificial grass surface which could be played soccer or rugby on.
While Martin discloses using olefin polymer materials and LLDPE polymers, Martin fails to teach using a blend of LLDPE and HDPE or LDPE, the density of polymers, adding reflective particles to the polymer, a texturized fiber, and tuft coverage.
Alvarez is drawn to artificial turf products. Alvarez discloses turf fibers which can be textured which are tufted or woven through a backing substrate (paragraph 11). The turf can be formed from a base polymer such as LLDPE and HDPE, wherein the LLDPE is present in amounts of 70-100 percent LLDPE and the balance can be 0-30 percent of another polymer such as HDPE or LDPE (paragraph 14). The LLDPE can have a density of 0.905-0.960 grams/cc (paragraph 14). The HDPE can have a density of 0.935-0.970 g/cc (paragraph 55). The fibers can further comprise various colorants and additives including reflective agents, stabilizers, luminescent compounds, processing aids, plasticizers, lubricants, surfactants, etc., present in amounts of less than 10 weight percent (paragraph 39-40). The pile can be formed as a closed loop (paragraph 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a blend of HDPE and LLDPE, as taught by Alverez, for the LLDPE polymer blend of Martin et al. using olefin polymers with the densities taught by Alvarez, and to have included reflective particles, and form textured fibers and create looped pile as taught by Alvarez, in view of their art recognized suitability for forming an artificial turf material.
Further, Martin does not teach that the additive has an effective rate or migration to provide an effective reduction of the fiber friction coefficient on the surface of the fiber for at least one year. However, Martin discloses the same structure of an artificial turf wherein the same additive is added to the polymer melt in amounts which encompass the claimed amount. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to expect that the turf of Martin would have the claimed reduction of fiber friction coefficient and effective rate of migration of the fatty acid amides, because the olefin based composition has the same amount of erucic acid as recited in the claims. Thus, claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected.
With regards to claim 11, Martin teaches that the fiber is used as turf field which would meet the limitations of claim 11. Further, since Alvarez et al. teaches using textured fibers, this would meet the limitation of having a curl or wave shape. Thus, the positively recited features of claims 12, 14, and 15 are considered to be met by the combination of Martin et al. and Alvarez.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. and Alvarez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 111607833A.
Martin and Alvarez does not teach incorporating an antibacterial agent into the composition. CN ‘833 is drawn to artificial turf. CN ‘833 discloses an artificial turf which incorporates an antibacterial agent such as zinc pyrithione (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated an antibacterial agent as taught by CN ‘833 into the artificial turf of Martin in order to enhance the antibacterial properties of the artificial turf. Once the antibacterial agent was incorporated into the artificial turf, it would be reasonable to expect that it would be substantially free of microbial infestation for the useful life of the artificial turf. Thus, claim 13 is rejected.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (WO 2020/142230) in view of Martin (EP 2 374 917 A1).
Alvarez is drawn to artificial turf products. Alvarez discloses turf fibers which can be textured which are tufted or woven through a backing substrate (paragraph 11). The turf can be formed from a base polymer such as LLDPE and HDPE, wherein the LLDPE is present in amounts of 70-100 percent LLDPE and the balance can be 0-30 percent of another polymer such as HDPE or LDPE (paragraph 14). The LLDPE can have a density of 0.905-0.960 grams/cc (paragraph 14). The HDPE can have a density of 0.935-0.970 g/cc (paragraph 55). The fibers can further comprise various colorants and additives including reflective agents, stabilizers, luminescent compounds, processing aids, plasticizers, lubricants, surfactants, etc., present in amounts of less than 10 weight percent (paragraph 39-40). The pile can be formed as a closed loop (paragraph 11).
While Alvarez discloses that various additives can be used in the polymer mixture, Alvarez fails to teach using erucic acid. Martin et al. is drawn to an artificial turf comprising a LLDPE based polymer mix and additives. Martin et al. teaches that the polyolefin based polymer can include processing aids made from stearic acid, oleic acid or erucic acid amides which are added to the polymer melt in amounts of 0.05-5 wt% (paragraph 58). The yarn can be combined with a backing substrate such as by tufting (paragraphs 60-61). The backing can have a basis weight of 25-150 gsm (paragraph 74).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add processing aids such as erucic acid in amount between 0.05-5 wt%, as taught by Martin et al. to the polyolefin polymer mixture of Alvarez to help improve the production of polyolefin based polymers for artificial turf.
Further, the combination of Alvarez and Martin does not teach that the additive has an effective rate or migration to provide an effective reduction of the fiber friction coefficient on the surface of the fiber for at least one year. However, Alvarez and Martin disclose the same structure of an artificial turf wherein the same additive is added to the polymer melt in amounts which encompass the claimed amount. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to expect that the turf of Alvarez and Martin would have the claimed reduction of fiber friction coefficient and effective rate of migration of the fatty acid amides, because the olefin based composition has the same amount of erucic acid as recited in the claims. Thus, claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected.
With regards to claim 11, Alvarez and Martin teaches that the fiber is used as turf field which would meet the limitations of claim 11. Further, since Alvarez et al. teaches using textured fibers, this would meet the limitation of having a curl or wave shape. Thus, the positively recited features of claims 12, 14, and 15 are considered to be met by the combination of Martin et al. and Alvarez.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez and Martin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 111607833A.
Alvarez and Martin does not teach incorporating an antibacterial agent into the composition. CN ‘833 is drawn to artificial turf. CN ‘833 discloses an artificial turf which incorporates an antibacterial agent such as zinc pyrithione (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated an antibacterial agent as taught by CN ‘833 into the artificial turf of Alvarez in order to enhance the antibacterial properties of the artificial turf. Once the antibacterial agent was incorporated into the artificial turf, it would be reasonable to expect that it would be substantially free of microbial infestation for the useful life of the artificial turf. Thus, claim 13 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest an artificial turf fiber wherein the fiber comprises a polymer composition comprising a mixture of LDPE and LLDPE wherein LLDPE is 25% to 45% the total composition and the polymer composition includes an anti-slip agent comprising erucic acid in and amount of 0.05 to 1.0 wt% based on the total weight of the fiber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the teach that the additive would not slip within the bulk polymer within a years’ time (response, page 9). While, the prior art does not expressly teach that limitation, the prior is considered to have the additive and polymer components recited in the claim. Further, the applicant’s arguments do not set forth that the erucic acid needs to be included in a certain manner for the antislip property to last a year. Thus, the feature is considered to be present in a polymer blend comprising the claimed polymer component.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the polymer of Martin et al. requires a block copolymer. However, the claims do not exclude a block copolymer. As set forth above the term “consisting essentially of” is read as “comprising” since the disclosure does not specifically teach what is or isn’t excluded by the phrase. Further, the polymer amounts are based on the total amount of LDPE and LLDPE or LLDPE and HDPE, and not based on the total weight of the polymer composition. So the claimed blend of LLDPE and LDPE or HDPE components can be only a small percentage of the total polymer, such as 15% and still read on the claim language.
Additionally, it is noted that the rejection of Martin in view of Alvarez is written with the LLDPE component being modified by adding LDPE or HDPE to just the LLDPE portion and not the block copolymer portion of the polymer. Therefore, the rejection over Martin et al. is maintained.
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 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
September 5, 2025
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789