DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 3-14 it is suggested the preamble begin with “The artificial surface” so that it is clear that the claims are referring back to the artificial surface of claim 1, and not a different material.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 7, 9, and 12 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.
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:
claim 3 recites the broad recitations of a cross-sectional width of around 1.0mm to 2.0mm and a cross-sectional breadth of around 200 microns to 450 microns, and the claim also recites a cross-sectional width of 1.2mm to 1.5mm and a cross-sectional breadth of 300 microns to 380 microns which are the narrower statements of the range/limitations;
claim 7 recites the broad recitation "wherein the at least one additive comprises 0.1% to 10% of the material or yarn", and the claim also recites "optionally 0.5% to 5%, or around 3% of the material or yarn" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
claim 9 recites the broad recitation "a tuft gauge of at least 1/2 inch, and the claim also recites "optionally at least 5/8 inch, optionally at least 3/4 inch" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; and
claim 12 recites the broad recitation "a sliding coefficient of friction of the artificial surface is between 0.7 and 1.0", and the claim also recites "optionally around 0.94" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alvarez (EP 3564418).
With respect to claim 2, Alvarez teaches a formulation that offers improved friction management for artificial turf, specifically, delivering reduced human skin abrasion and improved ball roll (paragraph [0004]). The formulation blends high and/or ultra-high molecular weight polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) polymer (siloxane polymer additive) with a base ethylene-based polymer (polyolefin material) in order to obtain a low coefficient of friction in the artificial turf surface (paragraph [0004]). An artificial turf filament is formed from the formulation (paragraph [0006]). The artificial turf filaments are fixed to a primary backing such that at the artificial turf filaments provide a tufted face extending outwardly from the top side of the primary backing (paragraph [0016]; Fig. 1). The yarn is subjected to a tip curl test where the shape of the filaments are visually observed after a heat treatment (paragraph [0056]). The examples provided tip curls of 1 (best), therefore it is reasonable to presume the artificial filaments are substantially straight (paragraphs [0056]; Table 6; Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (EP 3564418) in view of Knox (US 2005/0129906).
With respect to claims 1, 9-10 and 14, Alvarez teaches a formulation that offers improved friction management for artificial turf, specifically, delivering reduced human skin abrasion and improved ball roll (paragraph [0004]). The formulation blends high and/or ultra-high molecular weight polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) polymer (siloxane polymer additive) with a base ethylene-based polymer (polyolefin material) in order to obtain a low coefficient of friction in the artificial turf surface (paragraph [0004]). An artificial turf filament is formed from the formulation (paragraph [0006]). The artificial turf filaments are fixed to a primary backing such that at the artificial turf filaments provide a tufted face extending outwardly from the top side of the primary backing (paragraph [0016]; Fig. 1).
Alvarez is silent as to the artificial turf having a pile height of around 20mm to 75mm and/or a tuft gauge of at least 3/8 inch.
Knox teaches durable and wear resistant synthetic sports field having at least one strip having a plurality of fibrillated strands tufted within a multilayer backing material (paragraph [0010]). The strands are tufted in a wide variety of pile heights, patterns, gauges, and stitch patterns depending on the end use (paragraph [0010]). The strands are preferably fibrillated polyethylene fibers broken up into a plurality of blades and having a pile length that varies from 0.5 to 2.5 inches (12.7-63.5 mm) depending on end use (paragraph [0036]). For football fields, longer pile lengths around 2.5 inches (63.5 mm) are preferred (paragraph [0036]). For soccer fields, where the soccer ball moves generally along the grass surface, shorter pile lengths of about 1.5 inches (25.4 mm) are generally preferred (paragraph [0036]).
Since both Alvarez and Knox teach polyethylene fibers for use as artificial turf filaments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the artificial turf filaments of Alvarez to be between 0.5-2.5 inches (12.7-63.5 mm) depending on the end use, such as 2.5 inches (63.5 mm) for a football field and 1.5 inches (25.4 mm) for a soccer field.
Knox further teaches the strands have a gauge of between 1/8 and 1/2 inch, depending upon the end use application of the field (paragraph [0041]). The smaller the gauge, the plusher the field and the movement of infill is restricted (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the tuft gauge to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide an artificial turf that has the necessary plushness and infill retention for the desired end use of the field. It has been held that, wherein the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 3, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez further teaches the yarn is subjected to a tip curl test where the shape of the filaments are visually observed after a heat treatment (paragraph [0056]). The examples provided tip curls of 1 (best), therefore it is reasonable to presume the artificial filaments are substantially straight (paragraphs [0056]; Table 6; Fig. 1). The filament may also be a monofilament or a slit-film yarn (paragraph [0014]).
With respect to claim 4, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez further teaches the ethylene-based polymer comprises a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (paragraph [0022]).
With respect to claim 6, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez further teaches that various amounts of the ethylene-based polymer (polyolefin material) are contemplated in the formulation of the artificial filament (paragraph [0024]). In one embodiment, the formulation comprises 80 wt.% to 99 wt.%, 85-99 wt.%, 90-99 wt.%, or 90-95 wt.% of the ethylene-based polymer (polyolefin material) (paragraph [0024]).
The percentage of polyethylene range of Alvarez substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Alvarez, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 7, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez further teaches various amounts of the PDMS (siloxane additive) are contemplated within the artificial turf filament (paragraph [0030]). In one or more embodiments, the formulation may comprise 1-20 wt.%, 3-15 wt.%, 5-15 wt.%, or 5-10 wt% of the one or more PDMS (siloxane additive) components (paragraph [0030]). The amount of the PDMS (siloxane additive) component may be modified to tailor the friction performance of the yarn (paragraph [0030]).
With respect to claim 8, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez further teaches the artificial turf filament may have a multilayer structure where the outer layer comprises the above-described formulation to control friction and the inner layer comprises standard turf resin such as polyolefins (paragraph [0038]).
With respect to claim 11, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez further teaches the artificial turf may comprise an infill material (paragraph [0043]).
With respect to claim 12, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez in view of Knox teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach a sliding coefficient of friction of the artificial turf of between 0.7 and 1.0. It is reasonable to presume that the sliding coefficient of friction is inherent to Alvarez in view of Knox.
Support for said presumption is found in that the instant specification discussed at page 4, lines 19-24 that the reducing of the coefficient of dynamic friction is achieved by using a siloxane additive. Page 8, lines 30-31 discloses that a dimethylsiloxane is suitable for the additive. The instant specification at page 9, lines 29-34 discuss how using straight or linear filaments also reduce friction.
Similarly, as discussed above, Alvarez utilizes polydimethylsiloxane as an additive to obtain a low coefficient of friction artificial turf surface (paragraph [0004]). Additionally, the yarns of Alvarez do not curl (paragraph [0056]; Table 6). While Alvarez does not measure the sliding coefficient of friction specifically, the temperature increase during friction is measured to approximate skin friction (paragraph [0057]) and the disclosed formulation showed a significant temperature reduction over a variety of speed ranges (paragraph [0074]; Table 7).
Since Alvarez in view of Knox uses the same materials and shows a reduction in friction measured by different methods, the artificial turf of Alvarez in view of Knox is therefore expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 13, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The limitation “wherein the artificial turf surface is a contact sports playing surface” is a use limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Alvarez in view of Knox teaches an artificial turf comprising an ethylene polymer and a siloxane additive as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since Alvarez in view of Knox teaches the same materials and structure as disclosed by the Applicant, then it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
With regard to functional language or intended use limitations, the Applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a functional limitation in a number of ways, such as using a quantitative metric (e.g., numeric limitation as to a physical property) rather than a qualitative functional feature; demonstrate that the specification provides a formula for calculating a property along with examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not; demonstrate that the specification provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to teach a person skilled in the art when the claim limitation was satisfied; or amend the claims to recite the particular structure that accomplishes the function (see MPEP 2173.05(g)).
With respect to claim 15, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Alvarez further teaches a primary backing is tufted with the artificial turf filaments comprising the formulation (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (EP 3564418) in view of Knox (US 2005/0129906) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dirschl (US 5562761).
With respect to claim 5, Alvarez in view of Knox teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Alvarez in view of Knox is silent as to the at least one additive comprising one or more compound selected from octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, and hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDS).
Dirschl teaches an aqueous dispersion comprising a) an organopolysiloxane, b) a cyclic organosiloxane, c) a silane, d) a dispersant, and if required, e) a silane (col. 2, line 30 – col. 3, line 23). The component b) is preferably octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane or hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane or a mixture of the two (col. 6, lines 10-18). The composition is suitable for coating on fibrous substrates, reduces the risk of thermomigration of disperse dyes, provides good springiness and low temperature flexibility to fibers due to shape retention and shape recovery after mechanical loading, and is not tacky (col. 3, line 24 – col. 4, line 32).
Since both Alvarez in view of Knox and Dirschl teach fibers treated with diorganosiloxanes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the turf fibers with the composition of Dirschl, which includes octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane or hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane, in order to provide a turf fiber that reduces the risk of thermomigration of disperse dyes, provides good springiness and low temperature flexibility to fibers due to shape retention and shape recovery after mechanical loading, and is not tacky.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789