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 .
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 5, 6, 8, 9, and 17 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.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, the claims each recite an undulated side or section comprising or consisting of “uninterrupted undulations.” It is unclear what the scope of “uninterrupted undulations” necessarily entails, including what type of structure or absence thereof is considered an interruption within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites that the core has a diameter of 50 to 600 micrometers. The recitation of a “diameter” suggests that the core is in the shape of a circle. However, the claim is dependent from claims 1 and 15, neither of which require a circular shape. Therefore, it is unclear if the core requires a circular shape.
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 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPN 9,005,723 to Emge.
Regarding claims 1-10 and 20, Emge teaches a fiber for synthetic grass field, wherein the filament has a front and a back surface and at least one of the front and back surface includes a plurality of concave indentations (i.e., undulations) extending generally from a first end to a second end (Emge, Abstract). Emge teaches that the fiber has a center portion (i.e., a core) and two wing portions (i.e., protrusions) (Id., column 1 lines 14-17). Emge teaches that relatively straight sections produce a “glossy” look whereas the adjacent concave indentations provide a surface that scatters the light, producing a “matted” look which is believed to more closely resemble the look of natural grass (Id., column 2 lines 53-59). As shown in at least Figs. 2 and 5-9, the concave indentations appear to be uninterrupted wherein only the indentations are present on the side, and the wing portions comprise a rounded tip. Note that the concave indentations appear to be within the scope of the claimed notches. Emge teaches that the fibers are functionally connected to a backing member (Id., column 4 lines 20-24).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiber of Emge, comprising a single straight surface and a single surface with only a plurality of concave indentations, such as including 4 notches, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber having the predictable aesthetics including a glossy side and a matted side to thereby reduce light scattering to resemble the look of natural grass.
Regarding claim 4, note that the claimed limitation directed to a concave smooth side is interpreted as when the smooth side is a concave smooth side (as set forth in claim 3), then the curvature is as claimed.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2006/0159917 to Verleyen in view of USPN 9,005,723 to Emge.
Regarding claims 1-20, Verleyen discloses an artificial turf filament having a V-shaped cross-section (i.e., profile) including a central area and two wing areas (i.e., protrusions) integral with said central area (Verleyen, Abstract, paragraph 0055). Verleyen teaches that the central area may comprise one or more reinforcement fibers (i.e., solid core) coextruded with the wing areas (Id., paragraphs 0013-0015, 0074). Verleyen teaches that the central area has a thickness greater than the portion of the wing area adjoining said central area, while the thickness of each wing area tapers from the central area to the free end thereof (Id., paragraphs 0017, 0057, 0058). Verleyen teaches that each wing has two flat planar opposed faces (Id., paragraph 0056, Fig. 2), wherein the point of intersection of the two wing areas forms an angle between 90 and 170 degrees, preferably between 100 and 150 degrees, most preferably between 100 and 135 degrees (Id., paragraph 0059, claim 9) such as 112 and 120 degrees (Id., paragraphs 0063, 0065, Figs. 2 and 3). Verleyen teaches that the ends may comprise rounded tips (Id., paragraphs 0054-0074, Figs. 2-7). Verleyen teaches that the artificial turf filament may comprise one or more polymers, such as polyamide, polyester, polyethylene, and polypropylene (Id., claim 38). Verleyen teaches that the artificial turf filaments are tufted into a backing to form an artificial turf (Id., paragraphs 0040, 0053, 0072).
As shown in at least Figs. 2-7, the filament comprises a smooth side. Verleyen does not appear to teach the claimed undulated side. However, Emge teaches a fiber for synthetic grass field, wherein the filament has a front and a back surface and at least one of the front and back surface includes a plurality of concave indentations (i.e., undulations) extending generally from a first end to a second end (Emge, Abstract). Emge teaches that the fiber has a center portion (i.e., a core) and two wing portions (i.e., protrusions) (Id., column 1 lines 14-17). Emge teaches that relatively straight sections produce a “glossy” look whereas the adjacent concave indentations provide a surface that scatters the light, producing a “matted” look which is believed to more closely resemble the look of natural grass (Id., column 2 lines 53-59). As shown in at least Figs. 2 and 5-9, the concave indentations appear to be uninterrupted wherein only the indentations are present on the side, and the wing portions comprise a rounded tip. Note that the concave indentations appear to be within the scope of the claimed notches. Emge teaches that the fibers are functionally connected to a backing member (Id., column 4 lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the artificial turf filament of Verleyen, comprising a single surface with only a plurality of concave indentations, such as including 4 notches, as taught by Emge, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber having the predictable aesthetics including a glossy side and a matted side to thereby reduce light scattering to resemble the look of natural grass.
Regarding claim 4, note that the claimed limitation directed to a concave smooth side is interpreted as when the smooth side is a concave smooth side (as set forth in claim 3), then the curvature is as claimed.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Verleyen teaches an exemplary thickness T being 0.197 mm or 0.13 mm, and a width of the filaments across the centre of the tips being 1.35 mm or 1.32 mm, based on an angle of 112 or 120 degrees (Verleyen, paragraphs 0063-0070). Note that based on the values set forth in Verleyen, Verleyen suggests that the width of the wings would appear to be 0.813 mm. Verleyen teaches that the thickness of the central area is at least 50% greater than the thickness of the wing areas (Id., paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the artificial turf filament of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the core diameter and thickness of the wing areas, such as within the claimed ranges, as suggested by Verleyen, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber having the desired dimensions based on the totality of the teachings of Verleyen. Additionally, since the prior art combination teaches similar dimensions as claimed, the claimed radial extension appears taught by the prior art combination.
Regarding claim 14, as shown at Fig. 7, Verleyen teaches and suggests that the core has a circular cross-sectional profile.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the wing areas of Verleyen comprising rounded tips (Verleyen, paragraphs 0071-0073, Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Verleyen teaches that the reinforcement fiber (i.e., core) may comprise polyamide or polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) while the wing area (i.e., cladding) may comprise another polymer such as polyethylene (Verleyen, paragraph 0074).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786