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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 2-13 in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 1 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/16/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
Gluing means in claim 4 interpreted as a container storing glue and deposition means (See paragraph 0090 of Applicant’s specification as published. See below for further interpretation of deposition means).
Deposition means in claim 4 interpreted as a roller (See paragraph 0098 of Applicant’s specification as published).
Direction means in claim 7 interpreted as tracks or rollers (See paragraph 0079 of Applicant’s specification as published).
Heating means in claim 8 interpreted as a heating surface, roller, or plate (See paragraphs 0105-0109 of Applicant’s specification as published).
Pressure means in claim 9 interpreted as a roller (See paragraph 0118 of Applicant’s specification as published).
Cooling means in claim 10 interpreted as a roller or plate (See paragraphs 0129-0130 of Applicant’s specification as published).
Direction means in claim 11 interpreted as tracks or rollers (See paragraph 0079 of Applicant’s specification as published).
Heating means in claim 12 interpreted as a heating surface, roller, or plate (See paragraphs 0105-0109 of Applicant’s specification as published).
Pressure means in claim 13 interpreted as a roller (See paragraph 0118 of Applicant’s specification as published).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of an apparatus” in claim 1 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because no function language is present.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 10 and 12 are 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.
In reference to claim 10:
Claim 10 recites “wherein said apparatus comprises cooling means arranged along said sliding trajectory and defining a heating surface capable of cooling said belt to realize said cooling phase”. It is unclear how “a heating surface” can be “capable of cooling said belt” as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the term “heating surface” as used in claim 10 is interpreted as -cooling means- (see paragraphs 0125-0129 of Applicant’s specification as published).
In reference to claim 12:
Claim 12 recites “wherein said apparatus comprises heating means arranged along said sliding trajectory and defining a heating means capable of heating said carpet”. It is unclear the use of “defining a heating means” is intended as a further limitation of “comprises heating means”. For the purposes of Examination, the portion of claim 12 is interpreted as -wherein said apparatus comprises heating means arranged along said sliding trajectory
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) 2-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarris (IT201700109023 – all citations to text reference the Machine Translation) in view of Bieser (US20080280093).
In reference to claims 2 and 10:
Sarris discloses a method of making a carpet in synthetic grass by means of an apparatus (pg 1 ln 2-9, pg 9 ln 18),
said carpet comprising at least
a support extending mainly along a plane and defining an upper face and a lower face opposite to said upper face (Fig. 2 numeral 3),
a plurality of threads of synthetic grass constraint to said support to define fixing portions protruding from said lower face (Figs. 2-3 numeral 4),
glue spread on said fixing portions (pg 10 ln 16-19),
a geotextile membrane in non-woven fabric arranged in correspondence with said lower face to cover said support in that side and in contact with said glue said fixing portions (pg 4 ln 23-25, pg 9 ln 11-17)
and said method comprising:
constraining said wires on said support to define said fixing portions (pg 8 ln 20-24, Figs. 2-3),
spreading said glue exclusively on said fixing portions (pg 12 ln 7-9),
splicing, after said spreading, said geotextile membrane with said glue on said fixing portions to couple said membrane with said support along said face (pg 17 ln 13-14),
heating said carpet to temperatures equal to at least 100° C. after said spreading step (pg 17 ln 1-2 in view of pg 17 ln 13-14),
pressing exclusively said fixing portions towards said support without coming into contact with at least said lower face (pg 18 ln 1-2, pg 19 ln 18-19); and
cooling said carpet with a roller (pg 14 ln 22-24).
Sarris does not explicitly disclose the how the roller is cooled or cooling is to maximum temperatures equal to 10° C. after said pressing (claim 1) or wherein said apparatus comprises cooling means arranged along said sliding trajectory and defining a heating surface capable of cooling said belt to realize said cooling phase, and in which said cooling means are water-cooled to a maximum temperature equal to 5° C (claim 10). However, this would have been obvious in view of Bieser. Bieser teaches a method of forming a carpet having fibers extending through a primary backing material and adhered to a secondary backing material (abstract, Fig. 1). Bieser further teaches using a water cooled roller to perform the cooling (para 0160). Bieser further teaches the level of cooling can be varied based on factors such as the size of the roller and the time the carpet rolls against the roller (para 0160). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize water-cooling to cool the roller of Sarris based on the art recognized suitability for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Further, as Bieser teaches cooling to a desired temperature, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select cooling to a maximum of 10 degrees C with a maximum roller temperature equal to 5 degrees C as the general conditions are known in the art and the discovery of optimum or workable ranges is not inventive. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Sarris further discloses wherein in said phase of constraint of said threads are sewn on said support such that said threads are arranged in a U around said portions of support, the central portion of said threads protruding from said lower face of said support defining said fixing portions (Figs. 2 and 3).
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 3, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said apparatus comprises gluing means configured to realize said step of spreading and wherein said glue is a thermoplastic polymer and is deposited on said support in liquid form (pg 12 ln 10-24, Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said gluing means comprise at least one container including said glue in solid granular form and deposition means configured to withdraw said thermoplastic glue in the form solid granular from said container and to heat it bringing it to fusion (pg 12 ln 2-24).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 5, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said apparatus comprises direction means adapted to define a sliding trajectory for said carpet along which said support slides in said apparatus (Fig. 1 numeral 6a) and wherein said deposition means are spaced from said sliding trajectory by at least 1 mm (pg 13 ln 4-10).
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said apparatus comprises heating means arranged along said sliding trajectory and defining a heating means capable of heating said carpet to realize said heating phase, and wherein in said pressing phase a pressure is exerted in opposition to said heating surface (pg 13 ln 15-pg 14 ln 15, Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 8, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said apparatus comprises pressure means arranged along said sliding trajectory pressing said fixing portions towards said support in contrast to said heating surface and configured such that none of said pressure means and said heating surface comes into contact with said support (pg 14 ln 7-25, Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 11:
In addition to the discussion of claim 6, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said apparatus comprises direction means adapted to define a sliding trajectory for said carpet along which said support slides in said apparatus and wherein said deposition means are spaced from said sliding trajectory by at least 1 mm (pg 20 ln 13-16).
In reference to claim 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 11, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said apparatus comprises heating means arranged along said sliding trajectory and defining a heating means capable of heating said carpet to realize said heating phase, and wherein in said pressing phase a pressure is exerted in opposition to said heating surface (pg 13 ln 15-pg 14 ln 15, Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 12, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said apparatus comprises pressure means arranged along said sliding trajectory pressing said fixing portions towards said support in contrast to said heating surface and configured such that none of said pressure means and said heating surface comes into contact with said support (pg 14 ln 7-25, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarris and Bieser as applied to claim 5, above, and further in view of Lord (US3732136).
In addition to the discussion of claim 5, above, Sarris further discloses wherein said deposition means are constituted by a roller placed not in direct contact with said lower face of said support, but in contact with said fixing portions protruding from said lower face (pg 12 ln 20-24),
Modified Sarris does not teach said deposition means being also oscillating at least along a predetermined direction to realize a brush effect on said fixing portions. However, this would have been obvious in view of Lord. Lord teaches a method for backing tufted carpets (abstract). Lord further teaches using vibration in a direction perpendicular to the direction of carpet movement, i.e. oscillating, spreads and evenly distributes the adhesive and forces the adhesive into and between the tufts (col 4 ln 11-25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of modified Sarris with the oscillation of Lord in order to obtain a method which spreads and evenly distributes the adhesive and forces the adhesive into and between the tufts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1745