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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II and Species 1 in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-23 and 39-45 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species.
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 24-38 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.
Claim 24, it is not clear if the granule comprises PBAT and pigment/pigment masterbatch wherein the two components combine to form 60 wt% or if the granule comprises 60 wt% PBAT and additionally comprise (an undisclosed amount of) a pigment or pigment masterbatch
Claim 24, it is not clear if the 60 wt% is based on the weight of the entire granule or something else.
The word "preferably" renders claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See all claims with said word.
Claim 30, the phrase “the dark pigment” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 34, the phrase “another compostable polymer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 35, the phrase “another biobased polymer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 24-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by WO 2013/181705 to Toikka or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2013/181705 to Toikka.
Claim 24, Toikka discloses a granule inherently capable of use as an infill for an artificial turf system, wherein said granule comprises at least 60 wt % polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and a pigment or pigment masterbatch (see entire document including pages 5, 17 and 18).
Claim 25, the granule may comprise at least 70 wt % PBAT (pages 17 and 18).
Claim 26, the granule may comprise at least 90 wt % PTAB (pages 17-18).
Claim 27, the PBAT is inherently fossil-based or partly bio-based.
Claim 28, the granule has a diameter size in the range of 0.1-5 mm, and preferably 0.5-5 mm, and more preferably 1-5 mm, and more preferably 1.5-4 mm, and most preferably 1.5-3.5 mm, and with a length in the range of 1-15 mm, and preferably 1.5-10 mm, and most preferably 1.5-5 mm (page 5).
Claims 29 and 31-33, considering that the granules may be used to make a variety of products (page 1) the granules either inherently have the claimed properties or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the granules with the properties, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics for the intended use.
Claim 30, Toikka discloses the use of a pigment (page 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any suitable pigment color, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics for the intended use.
Claim 34, the granule may further comprise 1-30 wt % of another compostable polymer, and preferably at least one of: PEF, PHA, PLA, PBS, PBSA, PCL, TPS, and starch, or combinations thereof (pages 17 and 18).
Claim 35, the granule may comprise 1-30 wt % of another biobased polymer, and preferably at least one of: PLA, PHA, PHB, PA11, PA1010, Bio-PE, Bio-PP, Bio-PVC, BIO-PET and Bio-PBU, or combinations thereof (pages 17-18).
Claim 36, the granule may further comprise a filler material, wherein the filler material comprises at least one of: chalk, talc, kaolin, wood fiber, lignocellulose, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, bast-fiber, flax, and hemp, and combinations thereof (page 5).
Claim 37, the granule may have a cylindrical shape (Figure 2).
Claim 38, the granule may have a circular cross-section (page 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 24-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2024/0301632 to Nedi in view of USPAP 2021/0348022 to Assemat and/or USPAP 2020/0224374 to Harmeling.
Claim 24, Nedi discloses a granule for use as an infill for an artificial turf system, wherein said granule comprises at least 60 wt % polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) (see entire document including [0001], [0019], [0020] and [0042]-[0055]).
Nedi does not appear to mention including a pigment or pigment masterbatch but Assemat discloses that it is known in the artificial turf granule art to include a pigment or pigment masterbatch to provide the desired color and/or improved cooling (see entire document including [0001], [0004] and [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a pigment or pigment masterbatch, as taught by Assemat, to provide the granule color and/or improved cooling.
Claim 25, the granule comprises at least 70 wt % PBAT [0055].
Claim 26, the granule comprises at least 90 wt % PTAB [0055].
Claim 27, the PBAT is inherently fossil-based or partly bio-based.
Claim 28, the granule has a diameter size in the range of 0.1-5 mm, and preferably 0.5-5 mm, and more preferably 1-5 mm, and more preferably 1.5-4 mm, and most preferably 1.5-3.5 mm, and with a length in the range of 1-15 mm, and preferably 1.5-10 mm, and most preferably 1.5-5 mm [0081].
Claim 29, Nedi does not appear to mention granule hardness but Harmeling discloses that it is known in the art to construct infill with granules having the claimed hardness (see entire document including [0001] and [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the granule of Nedi with the claimed hardness, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 30, the dark pigment is a dark green pigment ([0092] of Assemat). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the pigment any desired color, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired appearance.
Claims 31-33, considering that the granules disclosed by the prior art are substantially identical to the claimed granule, the claimed properties appear to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the granules with the properties, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics for the intended use.
Claim 34, the granule may further comprise 1-30 wt % of another compostable polymer, and preferably at least one of: PEF, PHA, PLA, PBS, PBSA, PCL, TPS, and starch, or combinations thereof [0020].
Claim 35, the granule may comprise 1-30 wt % of another biobased polymer, and preferably at least one of: PLA, PHA, PHB, PA11, PA1010, Bio-PE, Bio-PP, Bio-PVC, BIO-PET and Bio-PBU, or combinations thereof [0020].
Claim 36, the granule may further comprise a filler material, wherein the filler material comprises at least one of: chalk, talc, kaolin, wood fiber, lignocellulose, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, bast-fiber, flax, and hemp, and combinations thereof [0021].
Claims 37 and 38, Nedi does not appear to mention the specific granule shape but Harmeling discloses that it is known in the art to use spherical or cylindrical shaped granules ([0014]-[0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the granule of Nedi with the claimed shape, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known shape on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789