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.
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) 1-2, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Volterrani et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0252537.
Volterrani discloses a synthetic turf structure having a mat, a plurality of grass strands extending from the mass, and infill arranged among the blades. See abstract and figures. The infill can comprise a sand layer and another layer on top of the sand layer which includes rachis of expandable corn cobs. See paragraph 0024-0025. Note that the rachis of corn cob is ligneous. The corn cob includes ligneous belt . The rachis of corn cobs has a size of 0.3-5 mm. See paragraph 0034. The bottom layer next to the mat can be sand. See paragraph 0037. The infill absorbs water which is equated with wetting with water. See paragraph 0026. The structure can include a sand layer, a layer of rachis of corn cobs and a mixed layer of sand and rachis of corn cobs. Since the water makes the corn expand, it is considered to be a performance modifying solute.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volterrani et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0252537.
Volterrani discloses a structure as set forth above.
VOlterrani does not teach the claimed amounts of water.
However, with regard to the amount of water provided and absorbed, it would have been obvious to have applied sufficient water to swell the particles in order to allow the particles to absorb and then release water to plants. Further, with regard to the limitation “wherein the at least one layer of particles is compressed in production”, this limitation is a process limitation and therefore, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. Since Volterrani taches selecting a suitable density for the particles, it would have been obvious to have provided the desired density which provided a suitably stable and hydrating infill material.
Claim(s) 5-8, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volterrani et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0252537 in view of Caggiano et al, WO2022/125953.
Volterrani discloses a synthetic turf structure having a mat, a plurality of grass strands extending from the mass, and infill arranged among the blades. See abstract and figures. The infill can comprise a sand layer and another layer on top of the sand layer which includes rachis of expandable corn cobs. See paragraph 0024-0025. Note that the rachis of corn cob is ligneous. The corn cob includes ligneous belt. The rachis of corn cobs has a size of 0.3-5 mm. See paragraph 0034. The bottom layer next to the mat can be sand. See paragraph 0037. The infill absorbs water which is equated with wetting with water. See paragraph 0026. The structure can include a sand layer, a layer of rachis of corn cobs and a mixed layer of sand and rachis of corn cobs. The mixed layer can correspond to one of the first or second layers of particles. Since the water makes the corn expand, it is considered to be a performance modifying solute.
Volterrani differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the particularly claimed coating or the claimed performance modifying solute if water is not considered to be a performance modifying solute.
However, Caggiano discloses incorporating pigments or dyes, UV stabilizers and antimicrobial agents into coatings used for infill materials. See paragraph 0013-0016.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the particular components taught by Caggiano into the water of Volterrani in order to provide additional properties to the infill such as resistance to fungus and microbes as well providing the desired color to the infill so that the infill had a pleasing appearance in combination with the turf. The antimicrobial coatings can include silver, zinc, copper or combinations thereof. See paragraph 0248.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volterrani et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0252537.
Volterrani discloses a synthetic turf structure having a mat, a plurality of grass strands extending from the mass, and infill arranged among the blades. See abstract and figures. The infill can comprise a sand layer and another layer on top of the sand layer which includes rachis of expandable corn cobs. See paragraph 0024-0025. Note that the rachis of corn cob is ligneous. The rachis of corn cobs has a size of 0.3-5 mm. See paragraph 0034. The bottom layer next to the mat can be sand. See paragraph 0037. The infill absorbs water which is equated with wetting with water. See paragraph 0026. The water can be rain. The particles expand when wet and contract when dry. The structure can include a sand layer, a layer of rachis of corn cobs and a mixed layer of sand and rachis of corn cobs.
Volterrani does not teach the claimed amounts of water.
However, with regard to the amount of water provided and absorbed, it would have been obvious to have applied sufficient water to swell the particles in order to allow the particles to absorb and then release water to plants. Further, with regard to the limitation “wherein the at least one layer of particles is compressed in production”, this limitation is a process limitation and therefore, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. Since Volterrani taches selecting a suitable density for the particles, it would have been obvious to have provided the desired density which provided a suitably stable and hydrating infill material.
Volterrani discloses the claimed size of the corn cob particles but does not disclose the size to which they swell after wetting or the claimed shock absorption or vertical deformation.
However, since Volterrani does disclose the claimed initial size, it is reasonable to expect that they would swell to the same size, since like materials must have like properties. Similarly, it would have been expected that the structure of Volterrani would either possess the claimed shock absorption and vertical deformation, or else, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to have selected the proportions of each component which provided a structure having the desired shock absorption and vertical deformation to produce the desired physical properties in the turf structure.
With regard to the method claims, Volterrani discloses providing the layers and wetting the infill. With regard to compacting and decompacting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have formed the structure so that it had the desired dimensions, density and smoothness to provide a turf surface with the desired physical properties and to have chosen suitable amounts of water to sufficiently expand the particles, depending on the amount of particles present in an area.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ligneous belt and rachis are distinct terms describing different corn anatomy and are not equivalents or obvious variants of each other. However, the rejection does not suggest using one in place of another but states that corn cobs include ligneous belt. The claims as currently written do not require that the particles consist of ligneous belt. That the corn cob can include other components does not mean it does not include ligneous belt which is sufficient to meet the claim limitations as written.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the 112 rejection.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789