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
The amendment filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 5-8 and 16-19 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.
Claims 1 and 16 require the polyurethane reaction mixture to include pyrithione zinc in an amount of 0.05 to 1.5 wt % and a chelating agent in an amount of 0.01 to 1.0 wt % but the total weight percentage (from which the claimed weight percentages are based) lacks antecedent basis. For example, it is unclear if the claimed pyrithione zinc weight percentage is based on the weight of the polyurethane reaction mixture. If so, it is unclear if that weight includes the chelating agent or excludes the chelating agent. The same issue applies to the claimed chelating agent weight percentage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 1, 5-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2017/0265547 to Sick in view of USPAP 2018/0016741 to Sirochman, USPN 5,114,984 to Branch, USPAP 2005/0003163 to Krishnan, and/or USPAP 2006/0252856 to Anderson.
Claims 1 and 16, Sick discloses an artificial turf comprising: a carrier; an artificial turf fiber incorporated into the carrier such that a first portion of the artificial turf fiber protrudes to a back side of the carrier, a second portion of the artificial turf fiber protrudes to a front side of the carrier, and a third portion of the artificial turf fiber is inside the carrier; and a polyurethane backing formed from a hardening of a polyurethane reaction mixture on the back side of the carrier (see entire document including Figures 6a and 6b and [0008]-[0013]).
Sick does not appear to specifically mention the polyurethane backing including a biocide agent but Sirochman discloses that it is known in the art to include an antimicrobial (biocide) in a backing (see entire document including [0001], [0006] and [0062]). Sirochman does not appear to mention specific biocides but Branch and Krishnan each disclose that it is known in the art to use a pyrithione zinc biocide and Branch specifically discloses including the pyrithione zinc biocide in an amount of between about 200 ppm and about 2000 ppm (0.02 to 0.2 wt %) to provide biocidal effectiveness (see entire documents including column 1, lines 15-23 and column 2, lines 23-55 of Branch and [0002], [0013], [0038] and [0042] of Krishnan). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use include pyrithione zinc biocide, within the claimed amount, to provide antimicrobial benefit(s).
Sick does not appear to specifically mention the polyurethane backing including a chelating agent but Krishnan and Anderson disclose that it is known in the art to include a chelating agent and Anderson discloses that the chelating agent may be present in an amount of 0.03 to 0.5 wt % to improve the physical and/or mechanical properties of the polymer (see entire document including [0034] of Krishnan and [0002]-[0012] of Anderson). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a chelating agent, within the claimed amount, to improve the physical and/or mechanical properties of the polymer.
Regarding the claimed ratio of a mass of the pyrithione zinc over the chelating agent, as explained above, the prior art discloses pyrithione zinc present in an amount of 0.02 to 0.2 wt % and chelating agent present in an amount of 0.03 to 0.5 wt %. Therefore, the prior art teaches a ratio of a mass of the pyrithione zinc over the chelating agent of between 0.05 to 2.0.
Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19, Krishnan does not appear to mention specific chelating agents but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the claimed chelating agents are known chelating agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made select any suitable chelating agent, 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.
Claim 7, the turf fiber comprises hydrophobic polyethylene fibers selected from the group consisting of polyethylene homopolymer fibers, polyethylene alloy fibers, polyethylene copolymer fibers, and polyethylene impact copolymer fibers [0054].
Claim 8, the polyurethane reaction mixture comprises a reaction product of first and second polyols with an isocyanate, wherein the first polyol is polyether polyol and/or polyester polyol having at least 2 hydroxyl groups per molecule, wherein the second polyol is polybutadiene diol, wherein the isocyanate comprises isocyanate monomers, isocyanate polymers or isocyanate prepolymers or a mixture thereof, and wherein the isocyanate monomers, the isocyanate polymers and the isocyanate prepolymers have two or more isocyanate groups per molecule ([0008]-[0013]).
Claim 16, Sick discloses artificial turf [0064]. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if the applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show non-obviousness, the applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim 17, the pyrithione zinc is present in an amount between 0.08 wt % to 0.7 wt % (Branch column 2, lines 42-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Branch fails to teach or suggest the claimed pyrithione zinc within the claimed amount of 0.05 wt % to 1.5 wt %. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sick does not appear to specifically mention the polyurethane backing including a biocide agent but Sirochman discloses that it is known in the art to include an antimicrobial (biocide) in a backing (see entire document including [0001], [0006] and [0062]). Sirochman does not appear to mention specific biocides but Branch and Krishnan each disclose that it is known in the art to use a pyrithione zinc biocide and Branch specifically discloses including the pyrithione zinc biocide in an amount of between about 200 ppm and about 2000 ppm (0.02 to 0.2 wt %) to provide biocidal effectiveness (see entire documents including column 1, lines 15-23 and column 2, lines 23-55 of Branch and [0002], [0013], [0038] and [0042] of Krishnan). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use include pyrithione zinc biocide, within the claimed amount, to provide antimicrobial benefit(s).
The applicant asserts that Krishnan fails to teach or suggest the claimed chelating agent within the claimed amount of 0.01 wt % to 1.0 wt %. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sick does not appear to specifically mention the polyurethane backing including a chelating agent but Krishnan and Anderson disclose that it is known in the art to include a chelating agent and Anderson discloses that the chelating agent may be present in an amount of 0.03 to 0.5 wt % to improve the physical and/or mechanical properties of the polymer (see entire document including [0034] of Krishnan and [0002]-[0012] of Anderson). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a chelating agent, within the claimed amount, to improve the physical and/or mechanical properties of the polymer.
The applicant also asserts that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed ratio of a mass of the pyrithione zinc over the chelating agent. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the prior art discloses pyrithione zinc present in an amount of 0.02 to 0.2 wt % and chelating agent present in an amount of 0.03 to 0.5 wt %. Therefore, the prior art teaches a ratio of a mass of the pyrithione zinc over the chelating agent of between 0.05 to 2.0.
The applicant asserts that it is unexpected that incorporating a chelating agent results in better control of the polymerization reaction rate of a polyurethane. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Anderson discloses that it is known to one skilled in the art to incorporate a chelating agent to fine tune the pot life and viscosity stability of a polyurethane ([0002]-[0012]). Regarding the claimed weight percentages, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc). [In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997).]
Plus, the burden is on the applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, commensurate in scope with the claims, and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b) and 716.02(d). An inventor (or anybody else) cannot prove unexpected results by simply saying the results are unexpected. Conclusory statements, mere arguments, or speculation are not sufficient to establish that results are unexpected (surprising). To be given weight, an assertion of unexpected results must be supported by factual evidence (concrete, factual proof).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights