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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Clai ms 12-20 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. Regarding Claim s 12-20 , A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance : C laim 12 recites the broad recitation such as 2% to 30% in claim 12, and each claim also recites “ in particular between 7% and 18% ” in claim 12 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The examination is based on the ranges of Claim 12 wherein the natural fibers comprise 2% to 30% of the granules by weight ; Furthermore, The examination is based on the ranges of Claim 13 wherein a process temperature of the compostable polymer is higher than 100° C ; Claim 14 wherein the pigment comprises 0.5% to 2.5% of the granules by weight ; Claim 15 wherein the lubricant comprises 0.1% to 0.5% of the granules by weight ; Claim 16 wherein the mixture of PLA and a PBS comprises 25% to 45% of the granules by weight ; wherein the chalk comprises 30% to 50% of the granules by weight ; wherein the oil comprises 1% to 5% of the granules by weight ; Claim 17 wherein the mixture of PLA and a PBS and/or PBAT comprises 25% to 50% of the granules by weight ; wherein the chalk comprises 30% to 50% of the granules by weight ; wherein the oil comprises 1% to 5% of the granules by weight ; wherein the hemp fibers comprise 2% to 30% of the granules by weight ; Claim 18 the mixture of TPC and PLS or the mixture of a TPC and PHB comprises 25% to 45% of the granules by weight ; wherein the chalk comprises 30% to 50% of the granules by weight ; wherein the oil comprises 1% to 5% of the granules by weight ; wherein the hemp fibers comprise 2% to 30% of the granules by weight ; Claim 19 the mixture of TPC and PLS or the mixture of a TPC and PHB comprises 25% to 50% of the granules by weight ; wherein the chalk comprises 30% to 50% of the granules by weight ; wherein the oil comprises 1% to 5% of the granules by weight ; wherein the hemp fibers comprise 2% to 30% of the granules by weight ; Claim 20 wherein the inorganic pigment comprises 0.5% to 2.5% of the granules by weight ; wherein the stearic acid comprises 0.1% to 0.5% of the granules by weight . In this case, the “ in particular ” (in each instance) causes the issue by creating multiple ranges/values that are not clear alternatives ( eg. , 2% to 30% to 7% and 18% in claim 12). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-6 , 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable over Ha ( US10059836 , herein H a) , in the view of Wu ( US20180179711 , herein Wu). Regarding Claims 1 , 2, 10 , 11 , H a teaches granular eco-friendly infill for artificial turf [C6; L52], which reads on the artificial turf infill consists of granules . Ha further teaches the granular eco-friendly infill for artificial turf comprising: elastic material selected from among natural latex [C 6 ; L 5 ], reads on the compostable polymer ; zeolite ; calcium carbonate (chalk) [C3; L34], wherein, the calcium carbonate has the density of 2.71 g/cm3 reads on the filler ; oil , dibasic acid ester [C3; L38] , which is synthetic ester , hence, collectively matches the claimed ingredients/materials and therefore, can meet the unfoamed feature . Additionally, t he composition taught by Ha set forth above has excluded the UV stabilizers, hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS), UV absorbers and radical scavengers upon non-selection any of them . Ha further teaches the oil range 5 to 15 wt % [C2; L26], overlaps the claimed range, but does not explicitly teach the ranges of the compostable polymer and filler, however, Wu teaches polylactic acid (PLA) , in the range of 10% to 90% of the composition [0017] overlaps the claimed range; calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polylactic acid (PLA) , in the range of 10% to 90% of the composition [0017] overlaps the claimed range; calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] into the composition formation process , because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, thermal resistance, moisture resistance, resistance to biological attack, and material handling properties [0015] . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding Claims 3 -5 , 12 , H a teaches the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim s 1 , 11 above, Ha does not teach natural fibers and range , however, Wu teaches cellulosic fiber , hemp, jute [0018], wherein , the jute fiber has lignin content 12.4% , and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] overlaps the claimed range . Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cellulosic fiber , hemp, jute [0018], wherein, the jute fiber has lignin content 12.4%, and cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition [0018] into the composition formation process , because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, thermal resistance, moisture resistance, resistance to biological attack, and material handling properties [0015] and further lead to the sustainability owing to the natural materials selection and manufacturing. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding Claim 6 , the O ffice realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, H a and Wu teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Ha teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of mix, stir, extrusion molding [C6; L63]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. density , would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation. Regarding Claim 13 , H a teaches stirring the primary mixture on heating at a temperature range of 85 to 110° C [C6; L27] encompasses the claimed temperature range of the compostable polymer . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha ( US10059836 , herein H a) and Wu ( US20180179711 , herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Siekmann ( EP3336252 , herein Siekmann ). Regarding Claims 8, 9 , H a and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha does not teach the wherein the natural fibers are at least partially embedded in the granules of the artificial turf infill , however, Siekmann teaches t he natural fiber is at least partially embedded in the vulcanized portion [0006]. Ha and Siekmann are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of engineering thermoplastic composite formation toward artificial turf manufacturing . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add t he natural fiber is at least partially embedded in the vulcanized portion [0006] into the composition formation process , because doing so would lead to the desired turf performance with advantage s that the natural fiber does not become unmixed with the rest of the artificial turf infill ; protection against water, rain and heat [0008]. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha ( US10059836 , herein H a) and Wu ( US20180179711 , herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Nagele ( WO2012110237 , herein Nagele , a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) . Regarding Claims 8, 9 , H a and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha teaches aromatic oil, but does not teach the specified oil which comprises an unsaturated synthetic ester, and wherein the oil is made from renewable resources , however, Nagele teaches trimellitic acid esters [0063] reads on the unsaturated synthetic ester ; plasticizer from the group of natural oils and waxes, c ontains carboxylic acids including their salts and esters, and cross-linked unsaturated vegetable oils . [0064] collectively reads th e oil is made from renewable resources . Ha and Nagele are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of engineering thermoplastic composite formation toward molded article manufacturing . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute trimellitic acid esters [0063] and the plasticizer from the group of natural oils and waxes, c ontains carboxylic acids including their salts and esters, and cross-linked unsaturated vegetable oils [0064] into the composition formation process , because doing so would optimize the manufacturing process owing to the plasticizer s selection of trimellitic acid esters [0063]; and further lead to desired property of ecologically neutral CO2 balance and are readily biodegradable or decomposable [00 64 ] , toward to energy and environmental sustainability owing to the selection of the plasticizer from the group of natural oils and waxes, c ontains carboxylic acids including their salts and esters, and cross-linked unsaturated vegetable oils [0064] . Claim s 14 , 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha ( US10059836 , herein H a) and Wu ( US20180179711 , herein Wu) as applied in the claim 1 above, in the view of Bonavoglia ( US20150204027 , herein Bonavoglia ). Regarding Claims 14 , 15 , H a and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha does not teach the pigment and lubricant, however, Bonavoglia teaches pigments include inorganic pigments that are suitably colored to provide an aesthetic appeal including iron oxide pigments [00 26 ], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025] , overlaps the claimed range. ; processing aids ; stearic acid [0029], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025] , overlaps the claimed range . Ha and Bonavoglia are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pigments include inorganic pigments that are suitably colored to provide an aesthetic appeal including iron oxide pigments [0026], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025]; processing aids ; stearic acid [0029], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025] and optimize the ranges into the claimed rang e s, further apply into the composition formation process , because doing so would further achieve the desired property of aesthetic appeal [00 26 ] upon the inclusion of the pigment; and further lead to the improved processability upon the inclusion of the specific lubricant . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Claims 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha ( US10059836 , herein H a) and Wu ( US20180179711 , herein Wu) as applied in the claim s 1 and 12 above, in the view of Noordegraaf ( EP3332067 , herein Noordegraaf ) and Nagele ( WO2012110237 , herein Nagele , a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) . Regarding Claims 16, 17 , H a and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim s 1 and above, Ha does not teach the compostable polymer is a mixture of the PLA and a PBS and/or PBAT , however, Noordegraaf teaches polylactic acid and/or combinations with polybutylene succinate (PBS) , and the granular infill further comprises copolyester of butandiol , adipic acid and terephtalic acid (PBAT) [0018-19], which indicate the compostable polymer is a mixture of either PLA/PBS or PLA/PBS/PBAT . Ha and Wu are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the polylactic acid (PLA) , in the range of 10% to 90% of the composition [0017] overlaps the claimed range; calcium carbonate 1% to 50% of the composition [0021] into the composition formation process , because doing so would further achieve the desired property of improved infill performance—e.g., improvements in one or more of the following characteristics: strength, resistance to ultraviolet light, thermal resistance, moisture resistance, resistance to biological attack, and material handling properties [0015]. Ha teaches aromatic oil, but does not teach the specified oil which comprises an unsaturated synthetic ester, however, Nagele teaches trimellitic acid esters [0063] reads on the unsaturated synthetic ester . Ha and Nagele are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of engineering thermoplastic composite formation toward molded article manufacturing . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute trimellitic acid esters [0063] into the composition formation process , because doing so would optimize d the processability [0062]. Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha ( US10059836 , herein H a) and Wu ( US20180179711 , herein Wu) as applied in the claim s 1 and 12 above, in the view of Yang ( CN107286629 , herein Yang, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) and Nagele ( WO2012110237 , herein Nagele , a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) . Regarding Claims 18, 19 , H a and Wu teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 1 above, Ha teaches elastic material selected from among natural latex [C6; L5], reads on the compostable polymer ; Ha does not explicitly teach the TPC range, however, Yang teaches styrene - butadiene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) [0019], in the range of 30-70% [0012], overlaps the claimed range . Ha and Yang are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the styrene - butadiene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) [0019], in the range of 30-70% [0012] , further apply into the composition formation process , because doing so would further achieve the desired property of excellent mechanical properties, with a resilience greater than 36%, a hardness greater than 68A, an elongation greater than 380%, a tensile strength of up to 14.6MPa, a tear strength of up to 35.5N/mm, and an abrasion wear of less than 300mm [0053] . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Ha teaches aromatic oil, but does not teach the specified oil which comprises an unsaturated synthetic ester, however, Nagele teaches trimellitic acid esters [0063] reads on the unsaturated synthetic ester . Ha and Nagele are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of engineering thermoplastic composite formation toward molded article manufacturing . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute trimellitic acid esters [0063] into the composition formation process , because doing so would optimized the processability [0062]. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha ( US10059836 , herein H a), Wu ( US20180179711 , herein Wu), Noordegraaf ( EP3332067 , herein Noordegraaf ) and Nagele ( WO2012110237 , herein Nagele , a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as applied in the claim 16 above, in the further view of Bonavoglia ( US20150204027 , herein Bonavoglia ). Regarding Claim 20 , H a, Wu, Noordegraaf and Nagele collectively teach the artificial turf infill as set forth in claim 16 above, Ha does not teach the pigment and lubricant, however, Bonavoglia teaches pigments include inorganic pigments that are suitably colored to provide an aesthetic appeal including iron oxide pigments [0026], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025], overlaps the claimed range.; processing aids ; stearic acid [0029], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025], overlaps the claimed range. Ha and Bonavoglia are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of end eavor, that of polymeric composite formation toward artificial turf application . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pigments include inorganic pigments that are suitably colored to provide an aesthetic appeal including iron oxide pigments [0026], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025]; processing aids ; stearic acid [0029], in the range of from less than about 0.01 wt % to more than about 10 wt % based on the weight of the composition [0025] and optimize the ranges into the claimed rang e s, further apply into the composition formation process , because doing so would further achieve the desired property of aesthetic appeal [0026] upon the inclusion of the pigment; and further lead to the improved processability upon the inclusion of the specific lubricant. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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. /Z. L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767 /MARK EASHOO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767