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 .
Applicant cancelled claims 1-20 and 25.
Response to Arguments
In page 5 of the applicant’s Remarks/Arguments, the applicant stated that
claims 17 and 19-21 are currently pending in this application.
The examiner reminds the applicant that claims 17-20 were cancelled in the preliminary amendment filed on 5/19/23.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive.
4.1. The applicant argues that persons having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a "resilient" material is one that is operable to return to its original form after compression or tension is applied. Accordingly, the list materials utilized to produce a "base support surface" described in Murphy, comprising "stabilized sand, crushed stone, asphalt, concrete, graded and compacted earth, other artificial surfaces, or any firm substrate," fails to disclose the "resilient layer" recited in claims 21, 29, 32 and 35.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification: “resilient” is typically interpreted as capable of absorbing shock or disturbing load, not necessarily “bounce-back material like rubber”. Furthermore, stabilized sand, crushed stone, and other aggregates are routinely treated as “resilient support layers” because they deform under load and redistribute forces, even though they are not elastomeric. Murphy does describe a layer that functions as resilient support in paragraph [0011], layers such as stabilized sand, crushed stones are considered resilient. Murphy also discloses other artificial surfaces (paragraph [0011]) which is open-ended and would include for example foam pads or elastic layers.
4.2. The applicant argues that Larsen states: A force plate 1 comprises a base plate 2 for the mounting of force sensors 11a, 11b, 12, 13, and a signal conditioner 14; a cover plate 3 disposed over the base plate 2... (Larsen, para. [0075]). The base plate 2… of Larsen is not further described. Accordingly, Larsen fails to teach, inter alia, arranging a plurality of impact sensors at least partially in a resilient layer, at least partially above a resilient layer, or at least partially in the backing layer, and no combination of the cited references would result in the invention recited in claims 21, 29, and 32 without inventive activity. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 21, 29, and 32 and their respective dependent claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the rejection does not rely on Larsen to teach resilient layer, Larsen is cited solely for its disclosure of multiple-axis impact sensors positioned within a layered turf assembly, which under BRI satisfies “at least partially in” or “at least partially above” a resilient layer. The resilient layer itself supplied by Murphy (location beneath the backing) in combination Garennes, which explicitly teaches elastomeric crumb-rubber material used to provide resilience and shock attenuation in turf systems. The claims do not require the reference to label the layer as “resilient” and the operation of the tri-axial force-sensing assembly inherently requires a deflectable or shock-responsive substance to transmit measurable multi-directional loads., consistent with MPEP § 2112 on inherent properties.
4.3. The applicant argues that Garennes only discloses crumb rubber as a replacement of the infill (i.e., granules 20), not as a fixed resilient layer arranged beneath the backing layer. Therefore, the combination of White, Murphy, Larsen, and Garennes fails to teach or suggest a resilient layer, arranged beneath the backing layer, comprising an elastomeric material.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the rejection does not rely on Garennes to teach the location of the resilient layer, but rather to teach the material, (i.e., that elastomeric rubber compositions (crumb rubber) are well known for providing resilience, shock attenuation, and hardness reduction in synthetic turf systems). the location of the resilient layer (beneath the backing layer) is taught by Murphy.
4.4. The applicant argues that further concerning claim 32, if the Office Action intends to assert that Larsen 's "pressure mat 4" configured to determine the "centre of rotation CoR" of a golfer from "foot positions" teaches "a plurality of impact sensors located at least partially in said backing layer," Applicant respectfully submits that that the "pressure mat 4" is not part of a backing layer. Larsen states that "a turf mat 5 [is] arranged on the top of the pressure mat 4." (Larsen, para. [0075]). The backing layer recited in claim 32 includes "a plurality of upstanding ribbons extending therefrom." Accordingly, Larsen's pressure mat is not located at least partially in the backing layer and no combination of the cited references teaches or suggests the claimed arrangement. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 32 and its dependent claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the rejection does not rely on Larsen to teach the structural components of the claimed backing layer, those are taught by White, but instead relies on Larsen solely for the teaching that impact/pressure sensors may be embedded within or beneath a turf assembly to detect multi-axial forces applied at the playing surface. Nothing in the claim requires that the sensors be inside the backing layer; rather, the claim recites “located at least partially in said resilient layer” and Larsen explicitly shows sensors mounted beneath a covering turf mat and within an underlying layer (base plate/pressure mat) to measure forces transmitted through the turf (paragraph [0075]).
4.5. The applicant argues that Meuleman describes a polymeric foam layer 3 arranged "on the top side of the backing layer." (Meuleman, Abstract). Applicant respectfully submits that no combination of the cited references teaches or suggests a polymeric foam sensor layer arranged beneath the backing layer (claim 36).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the rejection does not rely on Meuleman to teach the location of the claimed sensor layer, but instead to teach the use of a polymeric foam layer as resilient and force-attenuating (i.e., provides damping), (see paragraphs [0017], [0019]-[0021] and [0048]). The location of the resilient/sensor layer beneath the backing layer is already taught by Murphy, that discloses a resilient support layer underlying the turf surface and Larsen teaches embedding force/pressure sensors within or adjacent such that underlying layers to detect loads transmitted through the turf.
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 21-24 and 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over White, Jr. et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0198442) (hereinafter White) in view of Murphy et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0208674) (hereinafter Murphy) and further in view of Larsen et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0260890) (hereinafter Larsen) and des Garennes et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0175343) (hereinafter Garennes).
As per claims 21, 24, 26-29, 32 and 35, White teaches a backing layer having a plurality of upstanding ribbons extending therefrom (see paragraphs [0016]-[0017], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, examiner notes that top surface 102 is equipped with synthetic turf, i.e., upstanding ribbons extending therefrom); an infill layer comprising particulate matter or granulated particles interspersed between said upstanding ribbons (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0017], examiner notes that Fig. 1 shows granulated particles interspersed between said upstanding ribbons and paragraph [0017] discloses that top surface 102 is equipped with synthetic turf).
White fails to explicitly teach a fixed resilient layer arranged beneath said backing layer.
However, Murphy teaches that “The base support surface on which the modular synthetic grass turf is to be installed may be prepared with a surface made of stabilized sand, crushed stone, asphalt, concrete, graded and compacted earth, other artificial surfaces, or any firm substrate” (see paragraph [0011]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Murphy’s teaching into White’s invention because it would provide support on which the modular synthetic grass turf is to be installed. Therefore, activities such as sprot events would be accommodated.
White fails to explicitly teach a plurality of impact sensors located at least partially in said resilient layer, wherein said plurality of impact sensors are operable to detect a force or pressure applied to said backing layer in two or more axes.
Larsen teaches “an apparatus for use in analyzing the motion of a human subject comprising a platform upon which the subject stands, the platform comprising: force sensors arranged to measure force exerted on the platform by the subject in each of three dimensions; further comprising a foot position data collector arranged to collect data relating to the position of each foot of the subject on the platform; and an output arranged to output the force data and data relating to the position of each foot” (see paragraph [0007] and abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Larsen teaching into the combination of White and Murphy because appropriate force analysis would be made to monitor activities on the artificial turf.
White fails to explicitly teach that said resilient layer comprises an elastomeric material.
Garennes teaches “using crumb rubber into a synthetic surface” (see paragraphs [0068] and [0073], the examiner notes that crumb rubber is considered to be an elastomeric material). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Garennes’s teaching into the combination of White Murphy and Larsen because it would significantly reduce the surface hardness and therefore, improve playing surface.
As per claim 22, the combination of White, Murphy and Larsen teach the system as stated above. Larsen further teaches that one or more of said impact sensors is a piezoelectric sensor (see paragraph [0015]).
As per claim 23, the combination of White, Murphy and Larsen teach the system as stated above. Larsen further teaches that one or more of said impact sensors is an accelerometer (see paragraph [0007]).
As per claims 30 and 31, the combination of White, Murphy and Larsen teach the system as stated above. Larsen further teaches a controller operable to receive signals from said plurality of impact sensors; wherein said plurality of impact sensors are operable to transmit a signal to said controller corresponding to forces applied to said backing layer. (see paragraphs [0031] and [0076]-[0078]).
As per claims 33 and 34, the combination of White, Murphy, Larsen and Garennes teach the system as stated above. except that the backing layer comprises a primary layer and a secondary layer, and wherein said secondary layer comprises urethane (emphasis underlined)
Garennes further teaches the backing layer comprises a primary layer and a secondary layer, and wherein said secondary layer comprises urethane (see paragraph [0021], i.e., “coatings, including polyurethane and latex coatings, may be applied to the backing to help to hold the tufts in place (called increasing the “tuft bind”) and to increase the dimensional stability of the finished carpet”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Garennes’s teaching into the combination of White Murphy and Larsen because it would help to hold the tufts in place (called increasing the “tuft bind”) and therefore, increase the dimensional stability of the finished carpe.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in
view of Murphy and further in view of Larsen, Garennes and des Meuleman et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0191879) (hereinafter Meuleman).
The combination of White, Murphy, Larsen and Garennes teach the system as stated above except that the sensor layer comprises a polymeric foam (emphasis underlined).
Meuleman teaches that “the foam layer is a continuous layer the artificial turf system will require less maintenance. This is because the polymeric foam layer will stay evenly distributed over the system and it is not possible that parts, like with the prior art granular infill material, will be moved over the field simply by walking over the system or having a game on the artificial turf system” (see paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Meuleman’s teaching into the combination of White, Murphy, Larsen and Garennes teaching because the polymeric foam will remain uniformly spread across the system. Therefore, the artificial turf system will require less maintenance.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857