Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/25/2023 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-22 are cancelled. Claims 23-44 remain pending.
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 .
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 27-30, 35, 41, and 44 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 27-30 and 35 recite the limitation "the dielectric". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. To provide proper antecedency for this limitation, the Examiner replaces the dependency of claims 27-30 and 34 from claim 23 to claim 26.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the frontside" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To provide proper antecedency for this limitation, the Examiner replaces the dependency of claim 26 from claim 23 to claim 25.
Claim 41 recites the limitations "the artificial turf carrier mesh" and "the artificial turf fiber" (two occurrences). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner replaces these limitations with "the carrier mesh" and "the fibers", respectively.
Claim 44 recites the limitations "the inserted fibers" and "the fiber inserter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. To provide proper antecedency for this limitation, the Examiner replaces the dependency of claim 42 from claim 23 to claim 41.
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.
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.
Claims 23-39 and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP78 (JP-57101078-A – or record, English translation provided by the Examiner), hereinafter JP78, in view of SICK (US-2019/0017206), hereinafter SICK, and DE VRIES (US-2011/0049491), hereinafter DE VRIES. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 23 and 41, JP78 discloses A system for manufacturing an artificial turf {[FIG. 1]}, comprising:
- a dielectric barrier discharge device including a first electrode and a second electrode {[FIG. 1] electrodes 1 and 2, [claim 3]};
- a conveyor unit configured for moving a carrier mesh through an air gap formed between the first electrode and the second electrode {[P5, 1st ¶] note sheet 10 is fed, thus a conveyor unit, [FIG. 1] A is the air gap, 10 is the carrier mesh},
wherein the carrier mesh includes a backside, and wherein the carrier mesh includes fibers integrated {[FIG. 1] 12 is the backside and 11 are the fibers}.
JP78, however, is silent on the fibers being exposed on the backside (claim 23) and that the system comprises a fiber inserter to insert fibers in the carrier mesh (claim 41). JP78 just generally talks about tufting the fibers {[P6, 4th ¶]}.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to manufacturing artificial turf, SICK discloses such that a portion of the fibers are exposed on the backside (claim 23), a fiber inserter configured to receive the carrier mesh and the fibers, and insert the fibers into the carrier mesh (claim 41) {[abstract], [FIG. 2] note fibers 104 are exposed from back of 102}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of SICK in the system of JP78 and have included the fiber inserter of SICK in the system of JP78 and have tufted the fiber with exposure from backside.
As discussed, JP78 only generally talks about tufting and is silent on the details of this system, One would have been motivated to look to prior art to determine an appropriate system. Such art is SICK.
Furthermore, SICK recognizes its system as a tufter {[0010]}. Note that it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (generic tufter of JP78) for another (detailed tufter of SICK) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. Predicable results are achieved because in this case both are used as tufter in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 23, modified JP78 discloses the dielectric barrier discharge device to apply a dielectric barrier discharge to the backside of the carrier mesh as the carrier mesh moves through the air gap for plasma-activating the backside {[claim 3] note the non-conductive resin layer is the dielectric, [FIG. 1] note back side 12 is exposed to the discharge and since JP78 system is similar to the instant invention, therefore it is a dielectric barrier discharge and the backside is plasma activated};
and - a dispensing unit configured to apply a backing layer to the plasma-activated backside of the carrier mesh for providing the artificial turf {[FIG. 1] 16/17/18 is the dispensing unit that applies backing layer 19}.
Combination JP78 and SICK does not disclose that the barrier discharge is controlled or is silent on the limitation of “a control unit configured to control”.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to manufacturing multi-layer stack suing two electrodes, DE VRIES disclose a control unit configured to control the barrier discharge device {[0003], [0036]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of DE VRIES in the combination system of JP78 and SICK and have included a controller configured to control the dielectric barrier discharge of JP78.
As disclosed by DE VRIES, the advantage of this controller is the uniform activation of the surface. Furthermore, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art {see {MPEP 2144.04 (B)(III)}. One would have been motivated to automate the barrier discharge in order to better control the parameters as compared to manual operation.
Regarding claim 24, JP78 discloses wherein the first and second electrodes are elongated in a first direction, and wherein the conveyor unit is configured to move the carrier mesh in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction {[FIG. 1] note electrodes 1/2 are elongated going into the page and carrier mesh 10 moves from left to right or in a perpendicular direction}.
Regarding claim 25, JP78 discloses wherein the carrier mesh includes a frontside, wherein the first electrode is adjacent to the backside, wherein the second electrode is adjacent to the frontside {[FIG. 1] first electrode 1 is adjacent to 12 or backside and second electrode 2 is adjacent to the frontside 11}.
Regarding claim 26, JP78 discloses wherein the second electrode is at least partially encased in a dielectric, the dielectric extending at least in a direction towards the first electrode {[FIG. 1] note 6 is the dielectric of the second electrode and is extended toward the first electrode}.
Regarding claim 27, JP78 discloses wherein the second electrode is shaped as a solid or hollow cylinder, wherein in particular the dielectric and the carrier mesh are positioned such that the dielectric is in contact with the frontside of the carrier mesh {[FIG. 1] note 11 is in contact with 2; and 2 is a cylinder}.
Regarding claim 28, JP78 discloses wherein the dielectric has a thickness of at least 0.2 cm {[P6, 5th ¶] note (20-20.40/2=0.2 cm that is the thickness of the resin layer or dielectric}.
Regarding claims 29-30, JP78 discloses wherein the dielectric comprises plastic or rubber (claim 29), wherein the dielectric has a dielectric constant of at least 2.0 (claim 30) {[P5, 1st ¶] note rubber and note that as indicated in the instant specification [053] rubber meets the claimed dielectric constant}.
Regarding claim 31, JP78 discloses wherein the second electrode is configured to be rotatable about a longitudinal axis {[FIG. 1] note the arrows}.
Regarding claim 32, JP78 discloses wherein the system is configured to enable a user to manually adjust the speed of the carrier mesh moving through the air gap and/or wherein the control unit is configured to automatically adjust the speed {[P5, 1st ¶] note the range of speed of 2 to 10 m/min, thus requiring adjustment and there are only two options for such adjusting: manual or controller}.
Regarding claim 33, JP78 discloses wherein the control unit is configured to control the application of the dielectric barrier discharge to the backside of the carrier mesh at an energy density of at least 0.1 J/cm2 {[claim 5] note 0.1 J/cm2 is 16.7 w/m2/min or ranges almost overlap that is prima facie obvious}.
Regarding claim 34, JP78 discloses wherein the system further comprises a user interface for manually adjusting a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode; and/or - wherein the control unit is configured to automatically adjust the gap between the first electrode and the second electrode {[claim 4] note the range of 30 mm or less for gap or distance of the electrodes, thus requiring adjustment and there are only two options for such adjusting: manual or controller}.
Regarding claim 35, JP78 discloses wherein the gap is adjusted such that a distance between the first electrode and the outer surface of the dielectric at least partially enchasing the second electrode is greater than 0 mm {[claim 4]}.
Regarding claim 36, JP78 discloses wherein the first electrode and the carrier mesh are positioned such that a distance between the first electrode and a surface of the backside of the carrier mesh and the fiber portions protruding therefrom is below 10 mm {[claim 4]}.
The Examiner notes that JP78 teaches a range of less than 30 mm that encompasses the claimed range of less than 10 mm. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Regarding claim 37, JP78 discloses wherein the control unit is configured to control the dielectric barrier discharge device to continuously apply the dielectric barrier discharge to the backside for plasma-activating the backside {[P6, 5th ¶] note modified JP78 has a controller for the barrier discharge}.
Regarding claims 38-39, JP78 discloses wherein the first electrode is a single wire or a set of two or more wires (claim 38), wherein the first electrode is a single conductive profile or a set of two or more conductive profiles, wherein a conductive profile is in particular a metal rod or metal bar (claim 39) {[claim 3] note metal core or bar or rod}.
Regarding claims 42-44, JP78 discloses wherein the system is an inline manufacturing facility for artificial turf (claim 42), wherein the conveyor unit, the dielectric barrier discharge device and the dispensing unit are elements of the same manufacturing assembly line and are operatively coupled to each other (claim 43), wherein the operative coupling is implemented such that the carrier mesh comprising the inserted fibers is transported by the conveyor unit from the fiber inserter to the dielectric barrier discharge device for performing a plasma activation of the backside of the carrier mesh and at least some fiber portions of the inserted fibers protruding from the backside, and then transported to the dispensing unit configured to apply the backing layer to the plasma-activated backside of the carrier mesh for providing the artificial turf (claim 44) {[FIG. 1] note modified JP78 has the fiber inserter upstream of roller 9}.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP78, SICK, and DE VRIES as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of POLAK (US-2023/0165624), hereinafter POLAK.
Regarding claim 40, combination of JP78, SICK, and DE VRIES discloses all the limitations of claim 23 as discussed above. JP78 only discloses one conductive wire or bar in the first electrode {[FIG. 1] wire or core 3}. Therefore, JP 78 is silent on two or more wires that are galvanically decoupled.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to plasma applicator, POLAK discloses wherein the first electrode is a set of two or more conductive wires or profiles galvanically decoupled from each other {[0148], [0438], [FIG. 5A] note that 10 and 10’ can be considered a set of two conductive wires or electrodes that are galvanically decoupled}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of POLAK in the combination system of JP78, SICK, and DE VRIES and have replaced the single wire of JP78 with a set of two galvanically decoupled wires of POLAK.
As disclosed by POLAK the advantage of this set of two wires are that this provided offset are advantageous for plasma formation and a substantially homogenously distributed plasma is created {[0438]}.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23-29, 31-40, and 42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24-31, 33-42, and 46 of copending Application No. 18/480,089 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above mentioned claims 24-31, 33-42, and 46 of copending Application No. 18/480,089 claim the instant claims 23-29, 31-40, and 42.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 23-27 and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/939,903 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above mentioned claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/939,903 claim the instant claims 23-27 and 31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 23-29 and 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15-20 of copending Application No. 18/862,062 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above mentioned claims 1 and 15-20 of copending Application No. 18/862,062 claim the instant claims 23-29 and 40.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 23, 26-27, 31, and 38-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/940,327 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above mentioned claims 1-5 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/940,327 claim the instant claims 23, 26-27, 31, and 38-40.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748