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 .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on January 22, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 14-16, and 18 are amended and claim 19 is new, resulting in claims 1-19 pending for examination.
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) 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 10-1989-0003997)1,2,3.
With respect to claims 1 and 18, Kim discloses a monofilament for artificial turf with a cross-sectional shape as in Fig. 7 (paragraph [0006]). As can be seen in Fig. 7, the artificial turf fiber has an arced cross-section shape defined by a boundary line consisting of uninterrupted undulations, wherein the boundary line of the fiber is free of planar areas, pointed elevations and pointed depressions (Fig. 7). The fibers are tufted into a polypropylene woven fabric (carrier) (paragraph [0010]).
With respect to claims 4-5 and 17, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the monofilament has an outer convex boundary line and an inner concave boundary line. Kim further teaches that the cross-section of the spinneret used to form the monofilament in Fig. 7 has an outer periphery of continuously repeated triangles of the same size and an inner periphery continuously repeated with curved parts of the same size (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). It is reasonable to presume the resulting monofilament has similar geometry, namely the undulations defined by the inner and outer boundaries are the same size (100%) and therefore will have the same diameters and length. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the first and second diameters are similar.
With respect to claim 8, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the monofilament has ends connected by fiber arms to the center of the monofilament. Kim further teaches that the cross-section of the spinneret used to form the monofilament in Fig. 7 has an outer periphery of continuously repeated triangles of the same size and an inner periphery continuously repeated with curved parts of the same size (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). It is reasonable to presume the resulting monofilament has similar geometry, namely the undulations defined by the inner and outer boundaries are the same size and therefore will have the same thickness along the fiber arm.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 10-11, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the cross-section of the monofilament is shaped like the arc of a segment of a circle and like a catenary.
With respect to claim 15, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim further teaches that the cross-section of the spinneret used to form the monofilament in Fig. 7 has an outer periphery of continuously repeated triangles (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). The number of triangles on the outer periphery is 10-18 (paragraph [0005]). As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 7, the undulations on the inner surface alternate with those on the outer surface, resulting in a number that is one less than number on undulations on the outer surface (i.e., 9-17 bulges on the inner surface).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-1989-0003997)4,5,6 as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
With respect to claim 7, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim further teaches that the radius of the circle passing through the midpoint of the outer circumference and the inner circumference (fiber profile radius) is R = 16-30mm (paragraph [0005]). In an example the fiber has a width of 5 cm (paragraph [0017]). This results in a width to fiber profile radius of 1.67-3.13.
The ratio of width to radius range of Kim substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 7. 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 Kim, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 19, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Kim further teaches that the cross-section of the spinneret used to form the monofilament in Fig. 7 has an outer periphery of continuously repeated triangles (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). The number of triangles on the outer periphery is 10-18 (paragraph [0005]). As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 7, the undulations on the inner surface alternate with those on the outer surface, resulting in a number that is one less than number on undulations on the outer surface (i.e., 9-17 bulges on the inner surface).
As to the ranges recited in the claims, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, both the fibers of Kim and the instant invention are suitable for use as artificial turf. Additionally, the instant disclosure states that at least 6, at least 7, or 7-10 bulges on the outer surface and at least 6 or 6-10 bulges are suitable for the inner surface (see e.g., claim 15). This broader teaching overlaps with the teaching of Kim. Therefore, since the fiber of Kim is used for the same purpose as the instant invention (artificial turf) and discloses bulge amounts considered suitable by the instant disclosure, one skilled in the art would have expected the fibers of Kim and claim 19 to have the same properties.
Claim(s) 2-3, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-1989-0003997)7,8,9 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olde Weghuis (US 2011/0262665)3.
With respect to claims 2-3, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kim is silent as to the fiber having a radius of curvature at least as large as the smallest radius defining the undulations of the boundary line of other parts of the cross-sectional shape and thickenings at the fiber ends, wherein the diameter of each of the thickenings is thicker than the thickest of a fiber arm connecting the end to the center of the fiber.
Olde Weghuis teaches a synthetic fiber, characterized in that the synthetic fiber has a curved section and a thickness/width ratio such that the synthetic fiber will buckle locally upon being subjected to an external load, preventing unnecessary distortion of the fibers so the fibers will have a longer life (paragraph [0018]). The synthetic fiber is provided with a thickened part (thickening) at its free ends so as to enhance its stiffness and straightening capacity (paragraph [0019]). Said thickened part is round so as to make the fiber more sliding-friendly, whilst the transition from the synthetic fiber to the thickened part is curved so as to prevent undesirable splitting of the fiber (the ends have a radius of curvature at least as large as the smallest radius defining the undulations of the boundary line) (paragraph [0019]). The synthetic fiber is a monofilament for use in an artificial lawn (paragraph [0002]).
Since both Kim and Olde Weghuis teach monofilament fibers for artificial turf comprising an arced shape, 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 ends of the fiber of Kim to have a round thickened part so as to enhance the fiber stiffness and straightening capacity while also making the fiber more sliding-friendly.
With respect to claim 14, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kim is silent as to the fiber having a width of 0.7 to 2.5 mm.
Olde Weghuis teaches a synthetic fiber, characterized in that the synthetic fiber has a curved section and a thickness/width ratio such that the synthetic fiber will buckle locally upon being subjected to an external load, preventing unnecessary distortion of the fibers so the fibers will have a longer life (paragraph [0018]). The width of the synthetic fiber ranges between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm, preferably between 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm (paragraph [0048]).
Since both Kim and Olde Weghuis teach monofilament fibers for artificial turf comprising an arced shape, 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 monofilament of Kim to have a width of 0.5-1.5 mm, preferably 1.0-1.5 mm, because it is known in the art as a suitable width for arcuate monofilaments used in artificial turf. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 16, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kim is silent as to the majority of undulations forming consecutive pairs of a round bulge and a round indentation, wherein each pair has a length of 0.10 mm to 0.30 mm.
Olde Weghuis teaches a synthetic fiber, characterized in that the synthetic fiber has a curved section and a thickness/width ratio such that the synthetic fiber will buckle locally upon being subjected to an external load, preventing unnecessary distortion of the fibers so the fibers will have a longer life (paragraph [0018]). The width of the synthetic fiber ranges between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm, preferably between 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm (paragraph [0048]).
Since both Kim and Olde Weghuis teach monofilament fibers for artificial turf comprising an arced shape, 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 monofilament of Kim to have a width of 0.5-1.5 mm, preferably 1.0-1.5 mm, because it is known in the art as a suitable width for arcuate monofilaments used in artificial turf. See MPEP 2143.
The length of the arc of the monofilament can be estimated using the formula for the arc length of a semicircle: arc length = πr. This results in an approximate cross-sectional length of the filament being approximately 0.785-2.355 mm, preferably 1.57-2.355 mm.
Kim further teaches that the cross-section of the spinneret used to form the monofilament in Fig. 7 has an outer periphery of continuously repeated triangles (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). The number of triangles on the outer periphery is 10-18 (paragraph [0005]). Kim further teaches that the cross-section of the spinneret used to form the monofilament in Fig. 7 has an outer periphery of continuously repeated triangles of the same size and an inner periphery continuously repeated with curved parts of the same size (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]).
As can be seen in Fig. 7, the number of undulations is representative of the number of bulges and indentations. Therefore, a monofilament with a length of approximately 0.785-2.355 mm and 10-18 undulations would have an undulation pair length of approximately 0.044-0.236 mm.
The undulation pair length range of Kim in view of Olde Weghuis substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 16. 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 Kim in view of Olde Weghuis, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-1989-0003997)10,11,12 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Verleyen (US 2006/0159917)3.
With respect to claims 6 and 12-13, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 4 above.
Kim is silent as to the fiber comprising a thickening at its center which forms a rounded protrusion to at least one side of the fiber, the curvature of the protrusion being defined by a circle having a radius selected such that a ratio of the said radius to the radius of the first circles is in the range of 1.40 to 1.80, wherein the thickening is formed such that a round bulge is formed towards the outer surface of the fiber and does not bulge towards an inner surface.
Verleyen teaches an artificial turf filament (paragraph [0001]) where the central area of the filament has a thickness greater than the thickness of the wing areas (paragraph [0014]). This cross-section shape results in an advantageous behavior of the filaments as the filaments are mechanically loaded (paragraph [0016]). The protrusion in the central area is rounded (Fig. 6). By having the protrusion in the middle part of the filament on the inside of the V or U-shape geometry of the filament, a situation is reached where the ability to bend the filament is higher in one direction that from the other side (paragraph [0072]). This means that when a ball rolls over the filament it will encounter less resistance when it hits the filament from the outside of the V or U-shape (paragraph [0072]). The random tufting of filaments in the formation of the artificial turf allows a rolling ball to encounter filaments that bend easily and others that give more resistance (paragraph [0072]), providing roll behavior which closely resembles the rolling of a ball over a well-maintained natural grass surface (paragraph [0016]). Preferably the central area of the filament has a thickness at least 50%, preferably at least 100%, greater than the thickness of the wing areas (paragraph [0018]).
Since both Kim and Verleyen teach arced monofilaments for artificial turf 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 monofilament of Kim to include a rounded protrusion in the central area that is at least 100% thicker than the adjoining wing areas in order to provide an monofilament where the ability to bend is higher in one direction than the other, providing an artificial turf that provides a roll behavior for a ball which closely resembles that of natural grass.
Kim in view of Verleyen does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the radius of the rounded protrusion to the radius of the first circle is in the range of 1.40 to 1.80. 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 thickness of the rounded protrusion compared to the undulations located on either side to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide the desired resilience/response to mechanical loading in a given direction to the artificial turf monofilament. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a 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 the location of the protrusion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the protrusion on the inner surface and the outer surface to determine which provides the desired resiliency and bend direction. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-1989-0003997)13,14,15 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sick (US 2017/0051453)3.
With respect to claim 9, Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1 above. Kim further teaches the material used is nylon-6 or polypropylene (paragraph [0007]).
Kim is silent as to the monofilament comprising a nucleating agent. Sick teaches a fiber for artificial turf comprising a polymer and a nucleating agent (paragraph [0006]). By adding the nucleating agent the relative fraction of crystalline portions of the polymer may be increased, resulting in a rougher surface of the monofilament (paragraph [0036]). This rougher surface provide increased mechanical grip, allowing the fiber to be firmly attached to any kind of backing material (paragraph [0036]). The polymer may be polypropylene (paragraph [0090]) or a mixture including polyamide (paragraphs [0101]-[0102]).
Since both Kim and Sick teach polypropylene and nylon fibers for use as artificial turf monofilaments, 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 monofilament of Kim to include a nucleating agent in order to provide the monofilament with a rougher surface, allowing for increased mechanical grip in a variety of backing materials.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 3-6, 7, and 14-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed January 22, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the response Applicant submits that since the spinneret of Kim has a shape with continuously repeated triangles then the cross-sectional shape of the resulting fiber will also have continuous repeated triangles, contrary to the claims which are free of planar areas, pointed elevations, and pointed depressions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0006] states that the cross-sectional shape of the monofilament for artificial turf manufactured using the spinneret was shown in Fig. 7. As can be seen in Fig. 7 the repeated triangles of the spinneret in Fig. 1 are no longer pointed, resulting in a fiber cross-section with a boundary line of uninterrupted undulations free of planar areas, pointed elevations, and pointed depressions.
On pages 11-12 of the response Applicant submits that Verleyen teaches away from placing a central thickening at the outside/convex side of the fiber profile.
These arguments are not persuasive. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Verleyen discussed having the central thickening on the inside of the V or U-shape geometry of the filament, but does not discredit its presence on the outer surface. Verleyen states in paragraph [0062] that when a ball rolls over the filament it will encounter less resistance when it hits the filament from the outside of the V or U-shape. It is then expected that if the central protrusion is on the outer side a ball will encounter less resistance when it hits the filament from the inside of the V or U-shape.
As presented in the rejections above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the protrusion on the inner surface and the outer surface to determine which provides the desired resiliency and bend direction. See MPEP 2143.
On pages 11-12 of the response Applicant submits that the central region depicted by Verleyen does not constitute a thickening that smoothly merges into a boundary line of uninterrupted undulations that are free of pointed elevations and depressions.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination proposed above is to add a protrusion that is thicker than the rest of the protrusions to the fiber of Kim. As Kim already has established protrusions it is conceived that the ordinary artisan would make an existing protrusion larger, maintaining the undulations.
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 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
1 Cited in IDS
2 Translation provided with IDS used as reference
3 Previously presented
4 Cited in IDS
5 Translation provided with IDS used as reference
6 Previously presented
7 Cited in IDS
8 Translation provided with IDS used as reference
9 Previously presented
10 Cited in IDS
11 Translation provided with IDS used as reference
12 Previously presented
13 Cited in IDS
14 Translation provided with IDS used as reference
15 Previously presented