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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Rule 1.132 Declaration
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4/8/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-18 and 20 based upon 35 USC 103 rejection over Seifert in view of Hanson as set forth in the last Office action because: The evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The evidence requires wood flour and claim 1 is not specific with regard to the vegetable being wood flour. Additionally the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the composition, e.g. claim 1 requires the plasticizers to be 15 to 50%, yet the evidence is for 5%, 30%, 50% and then 60%. Evidence of the criticality of the claimed range must be up to the end point of the claimed range. And finally, if the properties of the composite are unexpected, then the unexpected properties must be claimed, e.g. Ka (force reduction), Vertical Deformation, Energy restitution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites the biodegradable biopolymer is present in amounts of 20-90%. The plasticizer is used in amounts of 15-50%. 90% biopolymer would not be possible based on the plasticizer amount of 15-50%. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites the plasticizer is used in amounts of 5-60%. Claim 1 from which claim 11 depends recites the plasticizer is 15-50% and therefore claim 11 is outside of the range of claim 1 and not properly dependent on claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al (WO2022008710 cited as US 20230243110) in view of Vivarelli (US 20210301474).
Seifert is directed to an artificial turf infill (602) for an artificial turf, wherein the artificial turf infill consists of granules (101), wherein the granules are made from unfoamed material, wherein the granules comprise a compostable polymer; a filler material; and an oil.
Seifert teaches the oil acts as a plasticizer [0019]. Seifert teaches the plasticizer makes the granules softer and increases elasticity and increases the robustness of the infill granules against abrasion and against damages induced by multiple freeze thaw cycles [0019].
Seifert teaches the granules of the artificial turf infill further comprises natural fibers selected from burlap fibers, jute fibers, cotton fibers, wool fibers, hemp fibers, flax fibers, kenaf fibers, nettle fibers, sisal fibers, coconut fibers, walnut fibers, abacá fibers. The natural fibers are equated with a vegetable component.
As to claim 1, Seifert teaches a composition with a biodegradeable polymer, the compostable polymer which can be polylactic acids: a vegetable component, e.g the natural fibers; and a plasticizer, i.e. the oil.
Seifert does not teach the glass transition temperature of the biodegradable biopolymer. As Seifert teaches the same materials, same biopolymers, it is reasonable to presume that the glass transition temperature is inherent to Seifert. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Seifert teaches the oil plasticizer is employed in amounts of 1-9% [0023] which is differs from the claimed range of 15-50%.
Vivarelli is directed to an artificial turf system. Vivarelli teaches an artificial turf infill is disclosed that comprises a plurality of infill granules. At least 50% of the granules have a curved shape, length of about 5 millimeters or more, and cross-sectional width of from about 1 to about 10 millimeters. Further, the granules comprise a polymer composition having a Shore A hardness of from about 20 to about 100 as determined in accordance with ASTM D2240-15e1, wherein the polymer composition includes a polymer matrix containing at least one thermoplastic elastomer that includes a styrenic block copolymer, vinyl acetate polymer, polyester, polyurethane, polyolefin, natural rubber, nitrile-butadiene copolymer, polyisoprene, butyl rubber, or a combination thereof [0005]. Vivarelli teaches natural rubber as well as isoprene [0015] which is considered by Applicant to be a biodegradable polymer (claim 2 of the instant invention).
Vivarelli teaches the plasticizers may constitute 5% to 40% [0018] which overlaps the claimed range of 15-40%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the amount of oil plasticizer as claimed motivated to impart flexibility, softness of the infill material.
As to claims 2 and 3, Seifert teaches the compostable polymer (equated with biodegradable polymer), can be one selected from the group consisting of polylactic acid (PLA), thermoplastic copolyester elastomer (TPC), polybutylene succinate (PBS), poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), a derivative thereof or a mixture thereof (ABST), [0018], [0066], [0070]. The cited polymers are aliphatic and aromatic polyesters as claimed.
As to claims 4 and 17, Seifert teaches the amount of compostable polymer is in the composition at 25-50% which is within the claimed range of 20-90% and 25-75% [0024].
As to claim 5, Seifert teaches natural fibers are used in the composition and the natural fibers are equated with vegetable component. Siefert teaches the natural fibers has lignin contents of 8.9% or higher [0033]. Seifert teaches the natural fibers can be cotton which is equated with cellulose.
As to claims 8 and 18, Seifert teaches the amount of natural fibers (equated with vegetable component) comprise 2-30% which overlaps the claimed range 5-70%. Seifert teaches the amount of natural fibers (equated with vegetable component) comprise 2-30% which overlaps the claimed range of 10-70%.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claims 9, Seifert teaches a plasticizer that is an oil and makes the granules softer and more elastic [0019]. Seifert teaches the oil can be made from glycerol, fatty acids [0020], and biodegradable oils.
As to claims 11, Seifert teaches the amount of oil is 1-5% [0081] which overlaps the claimed range of 5-60%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 12, Seifert teaches inorganic fillers such as chalk, barium sulfate, calcium carbonate, china clay, talc, aluminosilicate [0017].
As to claims 13 and 20, Seifert teaches the amount of inorganic filler is 30-50% [0025] and [0080] which overlaps the clamed range of 5-40% and 10-35%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 16, Seifert teaches the infill material is employed in between the fiber tufts [0156] which are equated with filiform material.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al (WO2022008710 cited as US 20230243110) in view of Vivarelli (US 20210301474) and in further view of De Vries et al (US 20230323127)
As to claims 10, Seifert teaches oils are used as plasticizers and teaches such oils can be biodegradable oils such as glycerol, fatty acids and esterification fats [0020]. Seifert differs and does not teach the claimed oils of claim 10.
Vivirelli teaches the plasticizers can be mineral oils, paraffinic oil, aromatic oil, naphthenic oil [0018] but does not teach the listed oils of claim 10.
DeVries is directed to sports field shock pad comprising lignin based binder (Title). DeVries The present invention relates to a sports field comprising: (i) a lower base layer; (ii) an upper grass and/or artificial grass layer; (iii) a shock pad layer, positioned between the base layer and the grass or artificial grass layer; wherein the shock pad layer comprises at least one shock pad comprising a coherent plate having upper and lower major surfaces, wherein the coherent plate comprises at least one coherent layer comprising man-made vitreous fibres (MMVF) bonded with a cured aqueous binder composition; wherein the aqueous binder composition prior to curing comprises: a component (i) in form of one or more oxidized lignins; a component (ii) in form of one or more cross-linkers; a component (iii) in form of one or more plasticizers (ABST).
DeVries teaches several different types of plasticizers such as hydrogenated oils, acetylated oils [0220]; DeVries teaches the one or more plasticizers selected from the group consisting of vegetable oils such as castor oil, palm oil, linseed oil, tall oil, soybean oil [0219].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a renewable plasticizer motivated to produce a biodegradable turf infill material.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al (WO2022008710 cited as US 20230243110) in view of Vivarelli (US 20210301474) and in further view of Hanson, JR (US 20170233956).
As to claims 10, Seifert teaches oils are used as plasticizers and teaches such oils can be biodegradable oils such as glycerol, fatty acids and esterification fats [0020]. Seifert differs and does not teach the claimed oils of claim 10.
Vivirelli teaches the plasticizers can be mineral oils, paraffinic oil, aromatic oil, naphthenic oil [0018] but does not teach the listed oils of claim 10.
Hanson is directed to a composition for synthetic turf infill that allows a surface of synthetic infill to remain cool when compared to comparative synthetic infill. The composition includes PVC, a plasticizer a pigment and blowing agent (ABST).
Hanson teaches the plasticizer can be an oil such as epoxidized oils such as linseed and soybean [0027]. Hanson teaches use of these oils provides for forming the infill materials from natural or renewable resources [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ epoxidized soybean oil motivated to employ a natural plasticizer in the infill material.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al (WO2022008710 cited as US 20230243110) in view of Vivarelli (US 20210301474) in view of Sethunath et al (WO 2022136633) cited as (US 20230407579).
As to claims 6 and 7, Seifert teaches vegetable material such as natural fibers. Seifert differs and does not teach a wood flour nor the size of the power form.
Sethunath is directed to a natural binder based infill for artificial turf, comprising biodegradable granules, wherein the granules comprise a natural binder (ABST). Sethnunath teaches the biodegradable granules comprise organic natural materials such as wood chips or plant waste in powder or particle form. Sethunath teaches these materials have the advantage of being obtained through recycling processes from waste products and they are resistance to adverse weather conditions [0018].
Sethunath teaches the natural rubber can be from polyisoprene [0010]. Sethunath teaches the infill is suitable for situation where the ability to biodegrade is important [0010].
Sethunath teaches a natural based rubber infill produced from latex, coir fibers, wood pulverized into a powder of <0.2 mm diameter [0043] which is 200 micron and in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a turf infill from wood powder motivated to produce an infill from natural materials.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al (WO2022008710 cited as US 20230243110) in view of Vivarelli (US 20210301474) in view of Tetrault al (US 20120258811).
As to claims 14 and 15, Seifert differs and does not teach a hydrogel.
Tetrault is directed to a synthetic turf having cooling layer (Title). Tetrault is directed to a synthetic turf having super absorbent materials in order to keep the synthetic turf cooler than conventional synthetic turfs. The present invention also provides for synthetic turf infill cooling particles comprising a layer of water-absorbing material coating a foundation comprising a core substrate. In one embodiment, the cooling particle is comprised of a core particle or substrate, which is coated with a water-absorbing material. In one embodiment, the water-absorbing material is a super absorbent polymer (ABST).
Tetrault teaches a superabsorbent is added to provide for cooling and a suitable superabsorbent polymer can be from natural, biodegradable, synthetic and modified natural polymers and materials [0130].
Testrault teaches the superabsorbent polymers can be hydrolyzed starch-acrylate graft copolymers or polyacrylates, polyacrylamides, starch [0052]. Testrault does not explicitly teach a hydrogel, however as Testrault teaches the same materials used for the hydrogel, the SAP materials of Testrault are equated with a hydrogel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ hydrogels such as starch, polyacrylates or polyacrylamides motivated to produce a turf infill material with cooling properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over Seifert in view of Hanson have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection over Seifert in view of Hanson has been withdrawn. Hanson teaches a PVC composition and claim 1 has excluded PVC from the composition. New grounds of rejection over Seifert in view of Vivarelli (US 20210301474) is presented as Vivarelli teaches it is known to employ the claimed amount of plasticizer with natural rubber polymers in a turf filler material.
With regard to the 1.132 Declaration, the declaration is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights