DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 17, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 22, and 30 are amended, claims 4-5, 7, 10, and 12-21 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, and 22-35 pending for examination.
Claim 1 is amended, however the claim status identifiers were not updated. The claim status identifier should be present and updated as required by MPEP 714(II)(C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 6, 8, 24-30-33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmie (US 10323361)1 in view of Magee (US 2002/0012764)2.
With respect to claims 1-3, 6, 24-25, and 30 Karmie teaches a synthetic turf system and method which includes turf tufted from monofilament fibers of a thermoplastic polymer (first yarn) and an antistat filament (second yarn) (col. 2, lines 43-50). The yarn 90 (first yarn) is tufted through a fabric backing 86 (primary backing) (col. 4, lines 3-7). As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2, the backing 86 (primary backing) has a face surface and an opposing rear surface, where the yarns 90 (first yarn) extend outwardly from the face surface of the backing 86 (primary backing) in a direction moving away from the backing 86 (primary backing).
The yarns 90 (first yarn) have a denier between about 3500-11000 denier (col. 7, lines 61-62) and are bundles of 4-12 filaments (col. 8, lines 10-16). This results in a dpf of the yarn 90 (first yarn) of about 262-2750. The linear mass density or denier of the antistat filament 33 (second yarn) is at least one of 35d-f6, 70d-f12, or 140d-f24 (col. 9, lines 7-9). As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2 the yarns 90 (first yarn) and the antistat filaments 33 (second yarn) each have approximately the same height.
The total yarn 90 (first yarn) denier range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 24. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Karmie, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Figs. 1 and 2 further show that the yarn 90 (first yarn) and the antistat filament 33 (second yarn) form the same tuft. The tuft portions extend above the backing 86 (primary backing) and pass through respective first and second openings of the backing 86 (primary backing) to form a backstitch positioned beneath or within the backing (primary backing) (Figs. 1 and 2). Karmie further explains that each tuft is shown with two ends having an antistat filament 33 (second yarn) (col. 4, lines 22-32). Karmie explains that one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that these two antistat filament ends 33 (second yarn) illustrated for each tuft or twisted yarn 90 is the same, single filament 33 (second yarn) (col. 4, lines 22-32). In other words, only one antistat filament 33 (second yarn) is used in each yarn 90, the single antistat filament 33 (second yarn) is not shown present along the entire length of yarn 90 for brevity (col. 4, lines 22-32). Therefore, the yarn 90 (first yarn) and the antistat filament 33 (second yarn) pass through the same first and second openings of the backing 86 (primary backing).
The yarns 90 may not be twisted as shown in Fig. 2 (col. 7, lines 52-55). This results in formation of a second backstitch formed by the antistat filament (second yarn) and would allow the yarn 90 (first yarn) and the antistat yarn 33 (second yarn) to be individually movable relative to one another (see e.g., Fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 37-40 which describes the grass blade ends as coming apart at the top). The antistat filament 33 (second yarn) may be present in every tuft row (1:1 ratio) (col. 4, lines 58-59).
Karmie is silent as to a color pattern comprising ink or dye printed on the face structure.
Magee teaches a method of applying color, pattern, design, and/or the like by means of a jet dye process or any other secondary or post patten application process including but not limited to transfer printing, silk screen printing, and rotary printing, etc. to preferably a woven carpet (paragraph [0002]). With the process an unlimited variety of elements can be created on a single piece of woven carpet substrate or base, maximizing the efficiency of the process, minimizing the cost, and providing for mass customization (paragraph [0048]). The carpet may be dyed using a Millitron jet dye or printing machine such as inkjet printing (paragraphs [0067], [0071]). Magee acknowledges the design can be created on multiple weave constructions and any pile type (paragraph [0020]) including carpet that resembles grass (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the turf of Karmie to include a printed ink pattern or a dye pattern as described by Magee on the face of the in order to efficiently provide a final turf with a desired design at a lower cost.
With respect to claim 8, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, the carpet of Karmie in view of Magee includes a desired pattern on the face surface. The limitation “wherein at least one yarn tuft of the plurality of yarn tufts comprises: a first portion in which the color pattern imparts color to an exterior surface of the first portion; and a second portion in which the color pattern does not impart color to an exterior surface of the second portion” is an aesthetic design choice directed to matters relating to ornamentation only which has no mechanical function, and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I). It is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to choose a design or pattern which provides a tuft with a colored portion and an uncolored portion.
With respect to claims 26 and 35, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Magee further teaches the carpet prior to dyeing may be naturally colored, uncolored, or pre-dyed (paragraphs [0042], [0051]-[0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the color of the yarn 90 (first yarn) and the antistat yarn 33 (second yarn), including being pre-dyed or using its natural or undyed color, depending on the background color desired for the pattern or design. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 27, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Since printing of the pattern occurs on the face of the carpet as a secondary process after the carpet is formed, it is reasonable to presume that the color pattern does not impart color to the backstitch.
With respect to claim 28, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, the carpet of Karmie in view of Magee includes a desired pattern on the face surface. The limitation “wherein a first tuft of the plurality of tufts comprises the first yarn having a first portion upon which a first color of the color pattern is applied and a second portion in which a second color of the color pattern is applied” is an aesthetic design choice directed to matters relating to ornamentation only which has no mechanical function, and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I). It is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to choose a design or pattern which provides a tuft with a first colored portion and a second colored portion.
With respect to claim 29, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, Magee teaches the application of an unlimited variety of designs, patterns, motifs, and images onto a carpet (paragraphs [0048], [0052], [0062]). The limitation “wherein the color pattern forms at least a portion of one of a logo, a picture, a cartoon, or an image” is an aesthetic design choice directed to matters relating to ornamentation only which has no mechanical function, and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I). It is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to choose a design or pattern which provides the desired aesthetic, such as a logo, picture, cartoon, or image.
With respect to claim 31, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Karmie further teaches the yarns 90 (first yarn) are grass-like and comprise monofilament fiber or slit tape fiber (col. 5, lines 11-12).
With respect to claim 32, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Karmie further teaches the yarn 90 (first yarn) may comprise nylon (col. 5, lines 28-32) and the antistat fiber 33 (second yarn) may comprise a bicomponent yarn having a conductive core, such as carbon, surrounded by a sheath of nonconducting material like polyester (col. 9, lines 4-9).
With respect to claim 33, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 26 above. As discussed above, the turf of Karmie in view of Magee includes a desired pattern on the face surface. Since printing of the pattern occurs on the face of the carpet as a secondary process after the carpet is formed, it is reasonable to presume that the color pattern does not impart color to the yarns, including the yarn 90 (first yarn), where the pattern is not printed.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmie (US 10323361)3 in view of Magee (US 2002/0012764)4 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Heine (US 4820566)1,2.
With respect to claims 9 and 11, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Karmie in view of Magee is silent as to the yarns further comprising a third yarn having a plurality of yarn filaments, wherein each yarn filament of the plurality of yarn filaments of the third yarn has a denier per filament (dpf) ranging from 2 to 60 dpf, and wherein the third yarn is not commingled with the first and second yarns.
Heine teaches tufted carpeting material useful as an entry mat to remove dirt and water from shoes (col. 1, lines 13-15). Generally the tuft carpet comprises a backing having thereon a plurality of tufts of fine denier fibers (third yarn) and a plurality of tufts of coarse denier fibers (col. 2, lines 43-48). The fine denier (third yarn) fibers preferably are about 15 to 50 denier per filament (dpf) and the coarse denier fibers are preferably about 150 to 500 dpf (col. 3, lines 7-9). The fine and coarse fibers are tufted in the form of yarns comprising a bundle of fibers (col. 3, lines 49-55; col. 5, lines 9-15; col. 6, lines 20-25). Heine further teaches the tufts of fine denier fibers (third yarn) are in areas separate from areas of tufts of coarse denier fibers (col. 2, lines 60-62). The fine denier fibers (third yarn) provide wiping action and water absorbency and the coarse denier fibers provide sufficient openness to collect and secure dirt (col. 2, lines 53-60).
Since both Karmie in view of Magee and Heine teach outdoor pile fabrics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the artificial turf of Karmie in view of Magee to include discrete portions of fiber denier fibers (third yarn) as described by Heine in order to provide wiping action to the turf as well as increase water absorbency.
With respect to claim 23, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Karmie in view of Magee is silent as to the article further comprising a cushion coupled to the backing structure.
Heine further teaches the tufted carpet may include a secondary backing which provides weight or body to the carpet material such as polyurethane or rubber latex that is foamed or patterned such as in a waffle pattern (cushion) (col. 5, lines 52-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the turf of Karmie in view of Magee to include a secondary backing (cushion) in order to provide weight or body to the final material.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmie (US 10323361)5 in view of Magee (US 2002/0012764)6 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rasnick Jr. (US 6332253)2.
With respect to claim 22, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Karmie further teaches the monofilaments may be air entangled with the antistat filament (col. 11, liens 13-31).
Karmie in view of Magee is silent as to the first and second yarns being air entangled at intermittent tack points.
Rasnick Jr. teaches that any of the carpet denier or textile denier singles yarns prior to being combined in making up a carpet face yarn may be air-tacked by an air entangling device that applies only minimal entangling, so that the singles yarns are sufficiently coherent throughout the manufacturing process (col. 3, lines 37-41).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the yarns of Karmie in view of Magee, particularly the yarns in the embodiment of Fig. 2 which have no twist (Karmie; col. 7, lines 52-55), to be air-tacked by an air entangling device to apply minimal entangling in order to ensure the yarns are sufficiently coherent throughout the manufacturing process.
Rasnick Jr. defines “cohere” as a means to stick or hold together in a visually identifiable and distinguishable mass, and example of which is a node (col. 1, liners 23-25). A “node” is defined as relatively compact, tangled sections of a yarn that are separated by relatively bulky or untangled sections (col. 1, lines 19-21). Therefore, the coherent nodes of Karmie in view of Magee and Rasnick Jr. are being interpreted as equivalent to the intermittent tack points of claim 22.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmie (US 10323361)7 in view of Magee (US 2002/0012764)8 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wessells (US 3940522)2.
With respect to claim 34, Karmie in view of Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Karmie in view of Magee is silent as to the yarn 90 (first yarn) absorbing pigment at a lower rate than the antistat filament 33 (second yarn).
Wessells teaches a cut pile fabric with a pile layer comprising a multiplicity of fibers extending from a backing and secured thereto by adhesive in a conventional manner (col. 1, lines 61-64). The multiplicity of fibers include grass-like fibers (monofilament blade yarn) having a denier per fiber between about 200 and about 1500 and crimped fibers having a denier per filament of between about 6 and about 150 (col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 3). The combined pile yarn provides improved aesthetics and mechanical (e.g., frictional) properties and closely simulates natural turf (col. 2, lines 8-15).
Wessells further teaches the grass-like and crimpable fibers may accept different amounts of dye and thus dye to different intensities of the same dye color (col. 8, lines 5-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the yarn 90 (first yarn) and the antistat filament 33 (second yarn) to have different dyeing rates in order to provide different intensities of the same dye color. Additionally, the instant specification discloses that a turf yarn absorbs pigment at a lower rate than a carpet yarn, leading to noticeable differences in the color tones shown by the two yarns (paragraph [0116]). In light of the teachings of Wessells and the instant specification it is reasonable to presume the yarn 90 (first yarn), which is grass-like and comprises monofilament fiber or slit tape fiber (col. 5, lines 11-12), being configured to absorb pigment at a lower rate than the antistat filament 33 (second yarn) is inherent to the tufts of Karmie in view of Magee and Wessells.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
The rejections of:
claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, 23-30, 32-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heine (US 4820566) in view of Combs (US 6468622) and Magee (US 2002/0012764);
claim(s) 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heine (US 4820566) in view of Combs (US 6468622) and Magee (US 2002/0017264) and further in view of Rasnick Jr. (US 6332253); and
claim(s) 31 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heine (US 4820566) in view of Combs (US 6468622) and Magee (US 2002/0017264) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wessells (US 3940522)
have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed June 17, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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.
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Previously presented
3 Cited in IDS
4 Previously presented
5 Cited in IDS
6 Previously presented
7 Cited in IDS
8 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights