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 § 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 1-4, 7, 9, 11-12, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyds et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0319943) in view of Friedel et al. (CN 102459496).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 15-16 and 18-20, Leyds et al. teach an artificial turf system used as a sports artificial turf comprising an elastic substrate layer, an artificial turf carpet applied on the elastic substrate layer and a first filler material which is filled into the artificial tuft carpet and the first filler comprises an infill material (it is noted that acrylic coated sand is taught as an embodiment, but Leyds is in no way limited to a particular embodiment, but is relied upon for all that is taught by Leyds) [0022-0025].
The previous combination is silent regarding the infill being hydrophobized sand which is silanized sand, type of silane and amount. However, Friedel et al. teach silanized quartz sand with alkyl triethoxysilane, alky trimethoxysilane, alkyl oligosiloxane or mixtures thereof in order to provide better coupling to the coating. Friedel et al. teach varying the amount of silane agent, water content, length of application time all to vary the amount of silanization. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the amount of silanization given the teachings of Friedel et al. in order to affect the degree of hydrophobization and mechanical properties of the sand and arrive at the claimed invention. It is noted that Friedel et al. also teaches using acylic as a coating on sand can lead to decreased hydrophobic durability. The claimed residual moisture of the hydrophobized sand in the claimed period of time and rotation resistance is inherent to the hydrophobized sand of Friedel et al. as a such similar sand is taught that is hydrophobized. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydrophobized silanized sand in the claimed amount of Friedel et al. in Leyds in order to provide better improved hydrophobic property durability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the elastic substrate layer comprises shock pads [0024].
Regarding claim 3, Leyds et al. teach in the background section the artificial turf carpet are selected from blades of textured yarns and flat yarns and is known in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to have the artificial turf carpet have yarns including textured yarns and/or flat yarns.
Regarding claim 4, the sand has a substantially round-grained shape [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 7, Leyds et al. are silent regarding the claimed filling quantity of the hydrophobic sand. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any filling quantity including the presently claimed amount in order to affect the artificial turf properties.
Regarding claim 9, Leyds et al. teach is silent regarding the hydrophobized quartz sand. However, Friedel et al. teach quartz sand because it has a higher purity, and is harder providing more durability. It would have been obvious to use the quartz sand of Jensen in Leyds and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyds et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0319943) in view of Friedel et al. (CN 102459496) in view of Huff et al. (PG Pub. 2004/0214000).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination is silent regarding the grain size distribution. However, Huff et al. teach at least 95% of the hydrophobic sand (or all of the sand) has a grain size distribution in the claimed range (12-40 mesh is taught) because these sizes are most suitable as filler [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the grain size distribution taught by Huff et al. in the previous combination because the sizes taught are most suitable as filler and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed SiO2 fraction. However, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed SiO2 fraction in order to provide industrial grade SiO2 for improved drainage, and stability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination is silent regarding the hydrophobized quartz sand. However, Huff et al. teach hydrophobized quartz sand (silica sand) because it is cost-efficient and stability. It would have been obvious to use the hydrophobized quartz sand of Huff et al. in the previous combination because it is cost-efficient and stability and arrive at the claimed invention. Further as set forth above, Jensen et al. teach quartz sand because it has a higher purity, and is harder providing more durability. It would have been obvious to use the quartz sand of Jensen in the previous combination and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed height of the hydrophobized sand. However Huff teaches the height of the hydrophobized sand is about 6 to about 50 mm in order to provide infill that gives a balance of fiber support, impact absorption, drainage, traction and support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the height of hydrophobized sand taught by Huff in the previous combination to provide infill that gives a balance of fiber support, impact absorption, drainage, traction and support and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyds et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0319943) in view of Friedel et al. (CN 102459496) in view of Reddick (PG Pub. 2007/0160800).
Regarding claims 13-14, the previous combination is silent regarding the second filler material. However, Reddick teaches using a second filler material including rubber granules in order to provide improved shock absorption. It would have been obvious to use the second filler material as taught by Reddick in the previous combination in order to provide improved shock absorption and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al. (EP 3636837) in view of Friedel et al. (CN 102459496).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9, 15-16 and 18-20, Sick et al. teach an artificial turf system used as a sports artificial turf [Abstract, 0059] comprising an elastic substrate layer (e-layer), an artificial turf carpet applied on the elastic substrate layer and a first filler material which is filled into the artificial tuft carpet and the first filler comprises sand [0086].
The previous combination is silent regarding the sand being hydrophobized sand which is silanized sand, type of silane and amount. However, Friedel et al. teach silanized quartz round shaped [0031] sand with alkyl triethoxysilane, alky trimethoxysilane, alkyl oligosiloxane or mixtures thereof in order to provide better coupling to the coating. Friedel et al. teach varying the amount of silane agent, water content, length of application time all to vary the amount of silanization. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the amount of silanization given the teachings of Friedel et al. in order to affect the degree of hydrophobization and mechanical properties of the sand and arrive at the claimed invention. It is noted that Friedel et al. also teaches using acylic as a coating on sand can lead to decreased hydrophobic durability. The claimed residual moisture of the hydrophobized sand in the claimed period of time and rotation resistance is inherent to the hydrophobized sand of Friedel et al. as a such similar sand is taught that is hydrophobized. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydrophobized silanized sand in the claimed amount of Friedel et al. in Sick et al. in order to provide better improved hydrophobic property durability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the elastic substrate layer comprise and elastic carrier layer (e-lower layer 108) [0085].
Regarding claim 7, Sick et al. are silent regarding the claimed filling quantity of the hydrophobic sand. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any filling quantity including the presently claimed amount in order to affect the artificial turf properties.
Regarding claim 9, Sick et al. teach is silent regarding the hydrophobized quartz sand. However, Friedel et al. teach quartz sand because it has a higher purity, and is harder providing more durability. It would have been obvious to use the quartz sand of Jensen in Sick et al. and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al. (EP 3636837) in view of Friedel et al. (CN 102459496) in view of Fowler et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0354147).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed flat or textured yarns. However, Fowler et al. teaches flay and textured yarns being used in artificial carpet turf in order to provide more grass-like aesthetic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flat and textured yarns of Fowler et al. in the previous combination in order to provide a more grass-like aesthetic and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al. (EP 3636837) in view of Friedel et al. (CN 102459496) in view of Huff et al. (PG Pub. 2004/0214000).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination is silent regarding the grain size distribution. However, Huff et al. teach at least 95% of the hydrophobic sand (or all of the sand) has a grain size distribution in the claimed range (12-40 mesh is taught) because these sizes are most suitable as filler [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the grain size distribution taught by Huff et al. in the previous combination because the sizes taught are most suitable as filler and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed SiO2 fraction. However, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed SiO2 fraction in order to provide industrial grade SiO2 for improved drainage, and stability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Huff et al. teach hydrophobized quartz sand (silica sand) because it is cost-efficient and stability. It would have been obvious to use the hydrophobized quartz sand of Huff et al. in the previous combination because it is cost-efficient and stability and arrive at the claimed invention. Further as set forth above, Jensen et al. teach quartz sand because it has a higher purity, and is harder providing more durability. It would have been obvious to use the quartz sand of Jensen in the previous combination and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed height of the hydrophobized sand. However Huff teaches the height of the hydrophobized sand is about 6 to about 50 mm in order to provide infill that gives a balance of fiber support, impact absorption, drainage, traction and support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the height of hydrophobized sand taught by Huff in the previous combination to provide infill that gives a balance of fiber support, impact absorption, drainage, traction and support and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al. (EP 3636837) in view of Friedel et al. (CN 102459496) in view of Reddick (PG Pub. 2007/0160800).
Regarding claims 13-14, the previous combination is silent regarding the second filler material. However, Reddick teaches using a second filler material including rubber granules in order to provide improved shock absorption. It would have been obvious to use the second filler material as taught by Reddick in the previous combination in order to provide improved shock absorption and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 06/03/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2019/0203425 teaches an artificial turf with shock pad, quartz sand and artificial turf.
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 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights