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 § 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, 8-13, 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 Hanson, JR (US 20170233956).
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 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 teaches the oil plasticizer is employed in amounts of 1-9% [0023] which is differs from the claimed range of 15-50%.
Hanson is directed to cooling infill for synthetic turf applications (Title). Hanson teaches a composition for synthetic turf infill that allows a surface of the synthetic infill to remain cool when compared to a comparative synthetic turf having an infill comprising crumbed rubber. The composition comprises a polyvinyl chloride, a plasticizer, a reflective pigment, a blowing agent, and a filler having a specific gravity greater than 2 (ABST). The plasticizer is employ in the composition in amounts of 5-30% [0006], [0018], [0020] and the plasticizer can be derived natural resources such as vegetable oil, such as soybean oil or corn oil derived plasticizer [0027]. Hanson teaches a plasticizer is employed to impart softness or flexibility and may lower the melting point of the polymer resin to which it is added and additionally alter tensile properties [0025].
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 and lower the melting point of the resin in 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 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.
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.
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 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 Hanson, JR (US 20170233956) 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 Hanson, JR (US 20170233956) 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, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claims 2, 3, 9 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 2, 3, 9 and 12 for broad and narrow limitations have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant amended claim 1 to incorporate claim 19 and for this reason the 35 USC 102 rejection over Seifert is withdrawn and a 35 USC 103 rejection presented over Seifert in view of Hanson as claim 19 was rejected in the NonFinal of 8/11/2025.
The 35 USC 102 rejection over Sethunath is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 103 rejection over Seifert in view of Hanson. Applicant argues that Hanson relates to a different technical field and polymer system. Hanson is related to PVC based compositions designed for cooling sheets or synthetic infill materials that are non-biodegradable. Applicant states that while Shore A hardness is a measure of surface firmness in elastomeric materials, it does not directly reflect the resilience or elastic recovery of a biodegradable composite under repeated dynamic stress. Two materials may exhibit similar Shore A values yet differ markedly in their elastic recovery, energy absorption, and fatigue resistance under cyclic loading. Applicant concludes, while Hanson refers to adjusting the plasticizer content to achieve a desired Shore A hardness in PVC- based sheets, such parameter does not correlate with the dynamic resilience and long-term elastic behavior required for turf infill materials. The mechanisms by which plasticizers act in PVC (through solvation and chain mobility within a vinyl chloride matrix) are fundamentally different from those governing the behaviour of aliphatic polyesters and polysaccharides combined with lignocellulosic fillers. A person skilled in the art of biodegradable turf infill materials would therefore not look to Hanson's PVC systems for guidance on the amount or function of plasticizer to employ, nor would such teachings be expected to yield a stable or effective biopolymer-vegetal composite.
Applicants are not persuasive because Applicants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant argues that the two materials may exhibit Shore A values yet differ markedly in their elastic recovery, energy absorption and fatigue resistance under cyclic loading. Applicant has not claimed any specific properties of Shore A hardness, elastic recovery, energy absorption and fatigue resistance. Hanson is directed to a turf infill material and while Hanson measures the Shore A hardness in the PVC sheet [0027], Hanson uses this as a measure of the amount of plasticizer to add and this measure is not considered teaching away. With regard to Hanson not teaching the properties for turf infill, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as the claim do not claim any specific properties.
The motivation to employ the plasticizer and in the amount claimed is found in both Seifert and Hanson. Seifert teaches an oil is employed and functions as a plasticizer and makes the infill granules softer and increases the elasticity as well as increasing the robustness of the granules against abrasion and damages induced by multiple freeze-thaw cycles [0019]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a plasticizer motivated to improve softness and elasticity. Hanson teaches plasticizer in amounts of 5-30% [0020] and the plasticizer imparts softness or flexibility and used to adjust the hardness or softness of a given polymer system as well as adjust tensile properties. Hanson also teaches adjusting the Shore A hardness [0027]. Both Seifert and Hanson teach the plasticizer is added to a substance to make it softer and more flexible and therefore it would have been obvious to employ the higher amount of plasticizer to further improve the softness and flexibility.
Applicant argues that the claimed range produces a specific and unpredictable technical effects. The claimed infill material, the plasticizer, if present in amounts of 15-50% by weight, forming together with the biopolymer in a continuous phase provide improved resilience and elasticity under repeated mechanical stress, enhanced dimensional stability and compactness comparable to high performance polymer infills and improved processibility and homogeneity in the presence of vegetal components. Applicant states that the plasticizer acts by causing a decrease in the glass transition temperature and Youngs modulus and the specific amount allows optimization of the elastic performance of the infill material.
If Applicant has evidence of an unexpected result from adding the claimed components at the claimed amounts, the evidence must be presented compared to the prior art of record and commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant has not claimed the glass transition temperature nor Youngs modulus of the composition. If the plasticizer is optimized in the claimed range of 15-50%, evidence that using the amount of plasticizer outside that range does not provide the desired result of decrease in glass transition temperature and Youngs modulus and improved elastic behavior is required. Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
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 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