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
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 have been amended. Claims 5 and 13-18 are canceled. New claims 19-27 have been added as requested. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the obviousness type rejections based on the combination Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of EP 2039830 issued to Harmeling et al., as set forth in the Action dated 10/22/25. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejection (s) is set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 19-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A.
The published WO document issued to Beauprez et a., teach an artificial turf comprising a back layer and tufted synthetic filaments of grass (title, abstract, page 1 – summary of the invention). Said turf (filaments) are tufted through the backing such that they protrude on the surface (page 2- detailed description). Beauprez et al., teach selecting at least two types of filaments based on their light transmittance and may further comprise pigments (page 4, 5-25). Beauprez et al., teach the different pigments have different absorption spectra in the electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength between 400-700 nm (page 4, 25). The Examiner is of the position that the backing tufted with pigmented synthetic filaments that absorb radiation in a range less than the claimed range meets the limitation of claim 1. Synthetic filament materials include polyethylene, polypropylene or polyamide (page 5, 5). With regard to claim 6, it appears that the filaments are tufted orthogonally from the base (see figure 1).
The published WO reference issued to Beauprez et al., does not specifically teach the claimed pigments.
However, the published JP application teach forming synthetic filaments for artificial turf comprising titanium dioxide (abstract).
The published JP reference teach a heat-shielding artificial turf pile which exerts superior heat shielding performance for preventing increase of a surface temperature of an artificial turf surface layer pavement, and can arbitrarily adjust a color tone inclusive of a black color tone, and to provide a means for manufacturing the artificial turf pile by a masterbatch method in an ordinary artificial turf pile manufacturing method. The artificial turf pile is characterized by containing a color pigment composition containing a pigment that has a heat-proof limit in the range of 250°C or more to 350°C or less, and a solar reflectance defined according to JIS A5759 in the range of 15% or more to 95% or less (abstract). The published JP application specifically teach that the pigment of the composition is titanium oxide, iron oxide, phthalocyanine, imidazolone, monoazo-disazo condensation, dioxazine, quinacridone. It consists of the pigment chosen from either. It is expected that the titanium dioxide would exhibit the claimed elevated solar reflectance for wavelengths of less than 2500 nm. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce an artificial turf with the capability to reflect light in the claimed near infra-red range it would have been obvious to form the pigmented synthetic filaments in the turf made Beauprez et al., using the specific titanium oxide pigment of the published JP application.
4. Claim(s) 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A as applied to claims 1 and 19 above and further in view of JP 2006322128 A.
The combination of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A is set forth above.
The combination does not teach forming filaments of the claimed polyvinylidene fluoride.
The published JP application ‘128 teach a modified polyvinylidene fluoride composition used to make filaments (fibers) used for fishing lines, fishing nets because of its economical properties, moldability, and excellent strength and transparency. The published JP application ‘128 teach that the polyolefin resins such as polypropylene resins and polyvinylidene fluoride resins are frequently used instead of polyamide resins.
The published JP Application ‘128 teaches that polyvinylidene fluoride resin filaments are excellent in toughness, impact resistance, weather resistance, water resistance, etc., have good water settling due to high specific gravity, and are transparent with less surface reflection in water due to their refractive index close to water (see translated document). Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide an artificial turf with filaments that have toughness, impact resistance, weather resistance, water resistance, etc., have good water settling due to high specific gravity, and are transparent with less surface reflection it would have been obvious to produce the artificial turf provided by the combination of Beauprez in view JP 2009068271 with the polyvinylidene fluoride taught by the published JP application ‘128. The Examiner is of the position that filaments having toughness, impact resistance, weather resistance, water resistance, etc., have good water settling due to high specific gravity, and are transparent with less surface reflection would also be desirable in the formation of artificial turfs. A worker skilled in the art would recognize these advantages and be motivated to use the claimed polyvinylidene fluoride.
5. Claim(s) 7 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A as applied to claims 1 and 19 above and further in view of Sawyer et al., US 2022/0098802A1.
The combination of Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A does not teach the claimed cavity.
The published patent application issued to Sawyer et al., teach an artificial turf having channels for fluid flow (title, abstract). Said channels are used for drainage of water away from the surface (paragraph 0046 and figures).
Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce an artificial turf with the ability to drain water away from the surface it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to produce the artificial turn of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A with drainage channels as taught by Sawyer et al.
6. Claim(s) 8 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view JP 2009068271 A as applied to claims 1 and 19 and further in view of KR 101619022 B1.
The combination of Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A does not teach the claimed water absorbing acrylic.
The published KR document teach an artificial turf comprising an acrylic water absorbing resin (see translated document). Maintaining the temperature and moisture of the artificial turf by discharging water by mixing the hygroscopic material to the base material when it rains or store it absorbs water when the sprayed water to grass. Natural rubber, SBR (Styrene Butadiene rubber), SEBS (Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene), EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer), polypropylene resin, polyethylene resin of any one or two or more of the mixed base material 50 to 99.5 parts by weight % and a mixture of 0.5 to 50% by weight of hygroscopic resin is molded in the form of a chip. A hygroscopic resin mixed with the base material is a polyacrylic acid partially neutralized water crosslinked, starch-hydrolyzate of the hydrolyzate of acrylic acid graft polymer, a vinyl acetate acrylic ester copolymer saponified, acrylonitrile copolymer or acrylamide copolymer, or crosslinked form thereof, using any one or a mixture of two or more of the polymer saponified consisting of cross-linked polymer or an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid esters by alkaline saponification of a copolymer of a cationic monomer.
Such hygroscopic resin has a property of not absorbing water up to several hundred times in the orders of magnitude than the self-weight and emit quite a bit of water to the exterior of the pressure (see translated document). Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce an artificial turf with the ability to absorb water, it would have been obvious to produce the artificial turf of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A with an acrylic based resin as taught in the published KR references.
7. Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A and further in further of JP 2011058165 A.
The published WO document issued to Beauprez et a., teach an artificial turf comprising a back layer and tufted synthetic filaments of grass (title, abstract, page 1 – summary of the invention). Said turf (filaments) are tufted through the backing such that they protrude on the surface (page 2- detailed description). Beauprez et al., teach selecting at least two types of filaments based on their light transmittance and may further comprise pigments (page 4, 5-25). Beauprez et al., teach the different pigments have different absorption spectra in the electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength between 400-700 nm (page 4, 25). The Examiner is of the position that backing tufted with pigmented synthetic filaments that absorb radiation in a range less than the claimed range meets the limitation of claim 1. Synthetic filament materials include polyethylene, polypropylene or polyamide (page 5, 5). With regard to claim 6, it appears that the filaments are tufted orthogonally from the base (see figure 1).
The published WO reference issued to Beauprez does not specifically teach the claimed pigments.
However, the published JP application teach forming synthetic filaments for artificial turf comprising titanium dioxide (abstract). The published JP reference teach a heat-shielding artificial turf pile which exerts superior heat shielding performance for preventing increase of a surface temperature of an artificial turf surface layer pavement, and can arbitrarily adjust a color tone inclusive of a black color tone, and to provide a means for manufacturing the artificial turf pile by a masterbatch method in an ordinary artificial turf pile manufacturing method. The artificial turf pile is characterized by containing a color pigment composition containing a pigment that has a heat-proof limit in the range of 250°C or more to 350°C or less, and a solar reflectance defined according to JIS A5759 in the range of 15% or more to 95% or less (abstract). The published JP application specifically teach that the pigment of the composition is titanium oxide, iron oxide, phthalocyanine, imidazolone, monoazo-disazo condensation, dioxazine, quinacridone. It consists of the pigment chosen from either. It is expected that the titanium dioxide would exhibit the claimed elevated solar reflectance for wavelengths of less than 2500 nm. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce an artificial turf with the capability to reflect light in the claimed near infra-red range it would have been obvious to form the pigmented synthetic filaments in the turf made Beauprez et al., using the specific pigments of JP 2009068271
Beauprez et al., in view JP 2009068271 A does not teach the claimed leaves.
The published JP application ‘165 teach an artificial turf comprising synthetic leaves (3) (see abstract and figure 1. Polyethylene is used for the turf yarns forming the turf leaves 3, but synthetic resins such as polypropylene, polyester, and polyamide can also be suitably used (see translated document). The published JP application ‘165 teach providing an artificial lawn which suppresses a rise in surface temperature by efficiently arranging lawn leaves with excellent heat shielding properties.
Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce an artificial turf lawn with excellent heat shielding properties it would have been obvious to produce the artificial turf provided by the combination of Beauprez et al., in view JP 2009068271 A with synthetic leaves as taught by the published JP application ‘165.
8. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A in further of JP 2011058165 A as applied to claim 9 and further in view JP 2006322128 A.
The combination of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A and JP 2011058165 is set forth above.
The combination does not teach forming the leaves from the claimed polyvinylidene fluoride.
The published JP application ‘128 teach a modified polyvinylidene fluoride composition used to make filaments (fibers) used for fishing lines, fishing nets because of its economical properties, moldability, and excellent strength and transparency. The published JP application ‘128 teach that the polyolefin resins such as polypropylene resins and polyvinylidene fluoride resins are frequently used instead of polyamide resins.
The published JP Application ‘128 teaches that polyvinylidene fluoride resin filaments are excellent in toughness, impact resistance, weather resistance, water resistance, etc., have good water settling due to high specific gravity, and are transparent with less surface reflection in water due to their refractive index close to water (see translated document). Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide an artificial turf with leaves that have toughness, impact resistance, weather resistance, water resistance, etc., have good water settling due to high specific gravity, and are transparent with less surface reflection it would have been obvious to produce the artificial turf provided by the combination of Beauprez et al., in view JP 2009068271 and JP 2011058165 A with the polyvinylidene fluoride taught by the published JP application ‘128. The Examiner is of the position that leaves having toughness, impact resistance, weather resistance, water resistance, etc., have good water settling due to high specific gravity, and are transparent with less surface reflection would also be desirable in the formation of artificial turfs. A worker skilled in the art would recognize these advantages and be motivated to use the claimed polyvinylidene fluoride.
9. Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A and further in further of JP 2011058165 A as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of above and further in view of Sawyer et al., US 2022/0098802A1.
The combination of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A and JP 2011058165 is set forth above.
The published patent application issued to Sawyer et al., teach an artificial turf having channels for fluid flow (title, abstract). Said channels are used for drainage of water away from the surface (paragraph 0046 and figures).
Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce an artificial turf with the ability to drain water away from the surface it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to produce the artificial turn of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A and JP 2011058165 with drainage channels as taught by Sawyer et al.
10. Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauprez et al., WO 2017084914 A1 in view of JP 2009068271 A and further in further of JP 2011058165 A as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of above and further in view of KR 101619022 B1.
The combination of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A and JP 2011058165 is set forth above.
The published KR document teach an artificial turf comprising an acrylic water absorbing resin (see translated document). Maintaining the temperature and moisture of the artificial turf by discharging water by mixing the hygroscopic material to the base material when it rains or store it absorbs water when the sprayed water to grass. Natural rubber, SBR (Styrene Butadiene rubber), SEBS (Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene), EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer), polypropylene resin, polyethylene resin of any one or two or more of the mixed base material 50 to 99.5 parts by weight % and a mixture of 0.5 to 50% by weight of hygroscopic resin is molded in the form of a chip. A hygroscopic resin mixed with the base material is a polyacrylic acid partially neutralized water crosslinked, starch-hydrolyzate of the hydrolyzate of acrylic acid graft polymer, a vinyl acetate acrylic ester copolymer saponified, acrylonitrile copolymer or acrylamide copolymer, or crosslinked form thereof, using any one or a mixture of two or more of the polymer saponified consisting of cross-linked polymer or an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid esters by alkaline saponification of a copolymer of a cationic monomer.
Such hygroscopic resin has a property of not absorbing water up to several hundred times in the orders of magnitude than the self-weight and emit quite a bit of water to the exterior of the pressure (see translated document). Therefore, motivated by the desire to produce an artificial turf with the ability to absorb water, it would have been obvious to produce the artificial turf of Beauprez et al., in view of JP 2009068271 A and JP 2011058165 A with an acrylic based resin as taught in the published KR references.
Conclusion
11. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights