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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there would be no undue burden on the examiner to consider all the claims. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 1, 2 and 4-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1, the phrase “surface cover” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what surface is being covered or what structure is being claimed (e.g. a layer) or what specific structure must be present to be considered a surface cover.
Claim 1, it is unclear what is considered “at least one weaving.” It is unclear if a woven fabric or woven layer or yarn (capable of being woven) is being claimed.
Claim 1, the phrase “separating layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what is being separated from what.
Claim 1, the phrase “curly yarn weaving” is not a term of the art. It is unclear what specific weaving structure is being claimed.
Claim 1, the phrase “straight yarn weaving” is not a term of the art. It is unclear what specific weaving structure is being claimed.
Claim 2, the phrase “the stabilized filling in the system” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, the phrase “the system” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, it is not clear what is considered a “stabilized filling” and how it differentiates from just a basic filling material.
Claim 2, it is not clear what is meant by “the base material provides the stabilized filling in the system.”
Claim 2, the phrase “the short yarn weaving” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, it is not clear what length a yarn must possess to be considered a short yarn yet be capable of being woven.
Claim 2, the meaning of a “filling layer” is unclear.
Claim 2, the limitation of “a separating effect of the filling that prevents static electricity, such as sand granule” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what is being claimed.
Claim 2, the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by “part of the curly yarn weaving remains on this separating layer.” It was never established that the curly weaving was ever on the separating layer and it is unclear what happened to the curly yarn weaving that is no longer on the separating layer.
Claim 2, the phase “the ball rolling, riding and jumping performances that determine the visual of the product” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, the phase “the ball rolling, riding and jumping performances that determine the visual of the product” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is claimed or how a “performance” can “determine the visual of the product.”
Claim 2, the claim mentions the phrase “the straight yarn weaving” but the context is unclear. The claim simply says the phrase between two commas.
Claim 2, the phase “the synthetic grass yarns made on the bottom of the base material” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, the phase “the friction on the top of the formed structure” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, the limitation “provides natural appearance to the turf” is indefinite. It is unclear what specific structure or appearance is necessary for a “natural appearance.”
Claim 4, the phrase “the woven yarns” lacks clear antecedent basis. It is unclear if the phrase is referring to the “at least one weaving” and/or the “at least one curly yarn weaving” and/or the “straight yarn weaving.”
Claim 4, the phrase “reach up to the base material” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the yarns are in contact with the base material or just reach towards the base material.
Claim 4, the claim mentions the phrase “curly yarn weaving and straight yarn weaving” but the context is unclear. The claim simply says the phrase between two commas.
Claim 4, the phase “the dispersion of yarns” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4, it is unclear what is considered a dispersion of yarns or what structure is being claimed by the dispersion of yarns being prevented.
Claim 4, the phrase “high durability of synthetic grass texture” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what constitutes texture durability or specific level of texture durability is being claimed.
Claim 5, the phase “the surface of the weaving” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, the requirement that the separating layer is “placed on the surface of the weaving” renders the claim indefinite. The claim is drawn to a product, not a process. Therefore, it is unclear if the claimed product requires the separating layer be positioned on the surface of the weaving or is claiming the product prior to said placement.
Claim 5, the phase “the separating effect” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, it is unclear what is considered a separating effect.
Claim 5, the limitation requiring that the separating layer “prevents static electricity blocking filler preferably such as sand organic granule to fall down” is unclear. There is no previously mentioned blocking filler or its location. It is also unclear what property is being claimed such as what is considered to “fall down.”
Claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 states that the separating layer “can be used in different locations and/or can be used between different layer.” It is unclear what is being claimed. For example, is a property of the separating layer being claimed or is a specific location being claimed.
Claim 6, the phase “the same” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, the phase “the bottom base of the felt or base cloth” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, the phrase “suitable width” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what specific width is being claimed or even what it must be suitable for doing.
Claim 6, the phrase “sewing or bonding the same on both sides by stretching to the bottom base of the felt or base cloth of suitable width” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 7, the requirement that the granular filling be “environmentally friendly” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what specific property or properties the filling must possess to be considered environmentally friendly.
Claim 7, the phrase “large areas” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what specific size is being claimed.
Claim 7, the requirement of “organic granule filler in synthetic grass tissue used in large areas is used” is unclear. There is no previous mention of “synthetic grass tissue” and it is unclear what is being claimed or what structure is required.
Claim 8, the phrase “upper weaving” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what specific location is required for a weaving to be considered an “upper weaving.”
Claim 8, the requirement that “an upper weaving be formed by attaching at least one thread to curly and straight monofilament and/or fibril from a needle(s) by using 3/8, 5/16, 5/8 or 3/4 inch cut pile weaving machines” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what structure is being claimed or even what specific process is being claimed. It is not even clear what is considered a “cut pile weaving machine” or how the claimed lengths relate to said machines.
Claim 9, the phase “the sub woven” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, the requirement that “two or more different dtexes longer than the sub woven, made of curly and straight yarns, of different density and weight are used” renders the claim indefinite. Dtex is a unit of measurement so it is not clear how dtexes can be used or what specific use is being claimed. Plus, dtex is not a length so it is unclear how one dtex can be longer than anything including longer than a “sub woven.” Further, the meaning of a “sub woven” is unclear and a sub woven is not previously claimed so it is not clear what specific dtex lengths are being claimed.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2005/0158482 to Cook in view of USPAP 2008/0187689 to Dierkens.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The below prior art appears to be the closest prior art but the claims are indefinite to such a degree that the claims are unintelligible.
Claim 1, Cook discloses a synthetic multi-layered turf and weaving structure, comprising at least one surface cover (e.g. 52), at least one base material (e.g. 62), at least one weaving (e.g. 68), at least one separating layer (e.g. 66), and granule filling (e.g. 96) (see entire document including Figure 4, [0001] and [0024]-[0046]).
Cook does not appear to mention at least one curly yarn weaving and straight yarn weaving but Dierkens discloses that it is known in the art to include at least one curly yarn weaving and straight yarn weaving to provide the hand and look of natural grass (see entire document including [0003]-[0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the turf of Cook with the claimed at least one curly yarn weaving and straight yarn weaving to provide the turf with the hand and look or natural grass.
Claim 2, the base material inherently provides the stabilized filling in the system, the short yarn weaving inherently forms a filling layer made on the base material, the separating layer is placed on the surface of the weaving, provides a separating effect of the filling that inherently prevents static electricity, such as sand granule, part of the curly yarn weaving remains on this separating layer and inherently determines the ball rolling, riding and jumping performances that determine the visual of the product, the straight yarn weaving, the surface coating inherently prevents the synthetic grass yarns made on the bottom surface of the base material from coming off or falling off, granular filling reduces the friction on the top of the formed structure, reduces static electricity, provides natural appearance to the turf (Figure 4, [0001] and [0024]-[0046]).
The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 4, the woven yarns reach up to the base material in weaving, curly yarn weaving and straight yarn weaving, which inherently prevents the dispersion of yarns and ensures high durability of synthetic grass texture (Figure 4, [0001] and [0024]-[0046]).
Claim 5, the separating layer is placed on the surface of the weaving, makes the separating effect, inherently prevents static electricity blocking filler preferably such as sand organic granule to fall down, can be used in different locations and/or can be used between different layers (Figure 4, [0001] and [0024]-[0046]).
Claim 6, the separating layer is integrated by sewing or bonding the same on both sides by stretching to the bottom base of the felt or base cloth of suitable width, formed from felt, polypropylene and/or polyethylene (Figure 4, [0001] and [0024]-[0046]).
Claim 7, the granular filling is environmentally friendly, and organic granule filler in synthetic grass tissue used in large areas is used (Figure 4, [0001] and [0024]-[0046]).
Claim 8, absent a showing to the contrary, it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if the applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show non-obviousness, the applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim 9, Dierkens discloses that two or more different dtexes longer than the sub woven, made of curly and straight yarns, of different density and weight may be used (see entire document including [0003]-[0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789