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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 7/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation describing “one or more storage containers", but Applicant has already introduced multiple storage containers in the base claim. There is thus improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and the scope of the claim is unclear.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 of this title, 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (“Andersen”)(US 2016/0067745 A1) in view of Coulton (US 2023/0107362), Lindsey et al. (“Lindsey”)(US 8,205,814) and legal precedent.
Andersen (fig. 2) teaches a system and method for recycling used artificial turf comprising:
(re: certain elements of claims 8, 10) a low-speed shredder (near A_1) to generate ground material from a roll of artificial turf, wherein rotating drums of the low-speed shredder have attached shredding tools (fig. 2 showing shredder A_1 in form of rotating drums performing a ‘Cutting Step’ and para. 102 teaching that shredder element is “component generally known in the art” and para. 105 teaching that artificial turf product to be recycled comprises backing material and grass fiber components that include infill, e.g., sand and rubber; see also para. 70-96 further defining component of artificial turf field and that “rolls” are transported to site for recycling);
a set of one or more screens (B_1, B_2 and S_1) configured to receive the ground material from the low-speed shredder, the set of one or more screens to separate, from the ground material, artificial turf fibers and infill material (para. 106-108);
a sand separator (E_1) configured to receive the infill material from the one or more screens and to separate lighter-weight infill material from heavier-weight infill material (para. 117 teaching separation into a lighter fraction 10 and a first heavier fraction 11 comprising infill material such as sand and rubber); and
an additional separator (para. 118 teaching that heavier fraction may be subjected to additional separation to increase recycling yield);
one or more storage containers configured to store one or more of the artificial turf fibers, the infill material, the lighter-weight infill material, and the heavier-weight infill material (fig. 2 showing separating of sand/rubber 08.-3 and “fine sand” and “fine rubber”; para. 109-111, 121 teaching collecting of different fractions, such as sand, rubber and grass thus storage containers are inherent);
(re: claim 9) wherein the roll of artificial turf comprises synthetic turf fibers connected to a backing material and infill material captured within the synthetic turf fibers and the backing material (para. 105);
(re: claims 1-7) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Andersen as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claims 8, 10, 14) wherein the drums rotate at less than 55 revolutions per minute;
wherein said sand separator comprises a sand screw machine configured to utilize rising water current; and
said additional separator is a density separator configured to receive the heavier-weight infill material from the sand screw machine, the density separator to further separate the heavier-weight infill material;
wherein the low-speed shredder operates at less than 50 revolutions per minute.
(re: claim 11) dewatering machinery to dewater one or more of the lighter-weight infill material and the heavier-weight infill material;
(re: claim 12) wherein the lighter-weight infill material is transferred over water weirs in the sand screw machine as part of a water slurry;
(re: claim 13) wherein the density separator utilizes a rising current to further separate the heavier-weight infill material.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the shredder may not be interpreted as a low-speed shredder.
Coulton, however, teaches that it is well-known in the artificial turf recycling arts to integrate multiple wet separation elements, including a sand screw with an upflow classifier, as water-based separation elements are more compact than dry separation elements and can produce cleaner products (para. 11-14 teaching water-based separation elements as more compact that facilitate on-site separation, wherein hydrocyclones are more efficient at separating fiber from infill slurry; fig. 3 near 221 and para. 44, 90-92 teaching that upflow classifier may comprise an auger located within upflow compartment for removing higher density elements, e.g., sand and rubber, and may use a flow valve and a weir to control output; para. 61-63, 80-81 teaching that dewatering and drying elements assist in preparing fibres, sand and rubber particles for collection; para. 39-44, 96 teaching fluidized bed, upflow classifier may be combined with hydrocyclone and spiral separators to separate infill components).
Lindsey further teaches that it is well-known to adjust shredding system parameters, such as shredding speed, to optimize the effectiveness of the shredding process (col. 7, ln. 5+ teaching variety of parameters may be optimized including cutting rotor speed and configuration).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the type of separator or the operating variables of known system elements, i.e., shredder speed, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the sorting/recycling arts as the type of material to be recycled controls variations in the specific device dimensions, features and/or sorting steps. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above, in legal precedent as described above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., sand screw, density separator or dewatering element) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences).
Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Andersen for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen, Coulton, Lindsey and legal precedent (“Andersen et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of what is well known in the art.
Andersen et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 15-20) a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to implement the claimed method steps. The implementation of known method steps in this manner, however, is well-known in the recycling arts and Examiner takes Official Notice of such. It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the recycling arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Andersen et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection set forth above. In particular, Andersen as cited above expressly teaches recycling artificial turf that contains infill of sand and rubber and screening said infill. Further, the operating speed of the shredder can be regarded as a well-known operating variable as taught by the prior art as cited above. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art renders Applicant’s claim obvious, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
October 23, 2025