DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 27-45 are pending as amended on 4/24/2026. Claims 38 and 40-45 stand withdrawn from consideration.
The prior art rejections previously made of record have been modified solely to reflect the amendments to the claims. A new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been set forth which was necessitated by new limitations added to claim 1. Therefore, this action is properly made final. Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/6/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. NPL Cite No 1 (Japanese Office Action dated 1/21/2026) has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 27-37 and 39 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to require the fiber to be configured such that the migration of siloxane to a surface of the fiber is reduced during use. However, the claim does not specify a basis against which the migration of the siloxane should be compared to determine whether any reduction has occurred. Additionally, neither the claims nor the specification identifies a manner in which the migration of siloxane to a surface should be measured or analyzed. Because one having ordinary skill in the art would not know what type of fiber should be considered a baseline for determining whether any reduction in siloxane migration has occurred, and because one would not know how to quantify siloxane migration, the scope of claim 1 (and the scope of claims which depend from claim 1) is unclear.
Additionally:
Claim 37 recites a compatibilizer which must be any one selected from a group of types of compatibilizers, with types in the group being separated by semi-colons. However, it is not clear what polymers/compatibilizers are encompassed by the following type: “a maleic anhydride grafted on free radical initiated graft copolymer of polyethylene, SEBS, EVA, EPDM, or polypropylene with an unsaturated acid or its anhydride selected from maleic acid, glycidyl methacrylate, and ricinoloxazoline maleinate;” Applicant is requested to review this type of compatibilizer for clarity, and more distinctly separate and recite types of compatibilizers encompassed by the language copied above.
Claim 34 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 34 depends from claim 1 and recites that the base polymer comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT).
However, claim 1 requires the main part of the base polymer to be chemically identical to the polymer backbone of the polymer grafted with siloxane(s), and, requires the polymer backbone to be a polyolefin or polyamide backbone. Claim 1 does not encompass a fiber wherein the base polymer comprises one polymer wherein the polymer is a polyester, because it would not be possible to satisfy the requirement that the main part of the base polymer be identical to the polymer backbone of the siloxane grafted polymer. Therefore, because claim 34 permits the base polymer to comprise one polymer, and recites PET and PBT as options therefor, claim 34 fails to properly further limit claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 27-29 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP H11313751; machine translation cited herein), as evidenced by Horio et al (JP 2004002816A; machine translation cited herein).
(Note: this is a rejection of broader generic claims, and not the elected species wherein the fiber comprises a core and cladding.)
As to claims 1, 27-29 and 34, Tanaka discloses an artificial turf with good drainage properties [0004] comprising a substrate and a large number of protrusions extending upward from the substrate [0006]. See also figures 2-5, wherein the protrusions are “1.” The protrusions disclosed by Tanaka correspond to an artificial turf fiber as presently recited.
Tanaka teaches that the resin composition constituting the protruding body has a mixture of thermoplastic resin and silicone graft polymer. Tanaka names several examples of the thermoplastic resin, including polyethylene, and teaches olefin resin is preferable from the viewpoint of water repellency, moldability and economic efficiency [0006]. Tanaka teaches that the silicone graft polymer is obtained by graft polymerizing polydimethylsiloxane to a polymer having thermoplasticity, and names polyethylene as an example of the main chain of the silicone graft polymer [0008].
Tanaka exemplifies an artificial turf formed from a resin composition comprising polyethylene as the thermoplastic resin (corresponding to a “base polymer” as presently recited) and SP-350 as the silicone graft polymer resin [0037]. SP-350 is silicone-grafted polyethylene (i.e., a graft copolymer comprising a polyolefin backbone and a plurality of siloxane side-chain blocks grafted thereto), as evidenced by Horio [0068; C-1], and therefore, Tanaka exemplifies artificial turf fibers wherein the polymer backbone and the base polymer are chemically identical (both are polyethylene, meeting claims 29 and 34), as recited in claim 1. The antioxidant and light stabilizer added in Tanaka’s example 1 do not contain halogen or free siloxanes, and therefore, Tanaka’s example fiber meets instant claims 27 and 28.
Tanaka further teaches that since the silicone is graft polymerized, the molecular weight is large and there is little loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface, and no decrease in physical properties because of the compatibility with the main material (p 3, last paragraph). Given that Tanaka’s silicone resin is compatible with the main material and not lost on the surface due to large molecular weight, there is reasonable basis to conclude that Tanaka’s silicone graft polymer resin is configured to remain immobile within the fiber such that migration is reduced during use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 27-29 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al (US 2017/0121856) in view of Tanaka (JP H11313751; machine translation cited herein).
(Note: this is a rejection of broader generic claims, and not the elected species wherein the fiber comprises a core and cladding.)
As to claims 1, 29 and 34-37, Sick discloses an artificial turf and artificial turf fiber (title, abstract) comprising a three-phase system polymer mixture comprising first polymer, second polymer and a compatibilizer [0006], corresponding to the “base polymer” component recited in instant claims 1 and 34-36 (see [0051] for disclosure of compatibilizer surrounding threadlike regions). Sick names several suitable types of compatibilizers in [0043], which correspond to the types recited in instant claim 37.
Sick discloses an example wherein the first polymer is polyamide and the second polymer is polyethylene [0019, 0036, 0040], which meets instant claims 35 and 36. Sick further teaches that the polymer mixture comprises 80-90 wt% of the second polymer [0044]. Therefore, Sick discloses a fiber wherein the polymer constituting the main part of the “base polymer” is polyethylene. Sick discloses that the polymer mixture may comprise additives [0072]. However, Sick fails to teach including a polyethylene grafted with siloxane.
Tanaka similarly discloses an artificial turf with good drainage properties [0004] comprising a substrate and a large number of protrusions extending upward from the substrate [0006]. Tanaka teaches that the resin composition constituting the protruding body has a mixture of thermoplastic resin and silicone graft polymer. Tanaka names several examples of the thermoplastic resin, including polyethylene and polyamide [0006]. Tanaka teaches that the silicone graft polymer is obtained by graft polymerizing polydimethylsiloxane to a polymer having thermoplasticity, and names polyethylene as an example of the main chain of the silicone graft polymer [0008] (corresponding to a plurality of siloxane side chain blocks grafted onto a polyolefin backbone). Tanaka further teaches that, for example, when EVA is used as the main thermoplastic resin, the same type of EVA resin should also be used as the main chain of the silicone graft polymer from the viewpoint of improved compatibility [0008].
Tanaka teaches that the if the silicone content in the mixture is too low, the water-repellent effect is small, but if too high, slip resistance is small and target strength is significantly reduced (p 3, top). Tanaka further teaches that since the silicone is graft polymerized, the molecular weight is large and there is little loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface, and no decrease in physical properties because of the compatibility with the main material (p 3, last paragraph). Tanaka also discloses that silicone acts as a lubricant, such that releasability during molding is improved (p 4, top).
Considering Tanaka’s disclosure, when preparing artificial turf fibers from a thermoplastic polymer mixture comprising polyethylene as a major component and polyamide as a minor component, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a polymer grafted with siloxane as an additive in order to achieve a desired degree of water-repellent effect, slip resistance and strength, and in order to improve releasability during molding. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the main chain of the silicone graft polymer from the same type of resin (i.e., polyethylene) which forms the majority of the thermoplastic mixture, from the viewpoint of compatibility. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed an artificial turf fiber utilizing a polymer mixture comprising polyamide as first polymer, polyethylene as second polymer, compatibilizer and additives [0072], as taught by Sick, by further including a polyethylene grafted with siloxane in order to improve water-repellency and releasability, as taught by Tanaka, thereby arriving at the presently claimed subject matter wherein the polymer backbone and the polymer constituting a main part of the base polymer are both polyethylene (i.e., chemically identical).
Tanaka further teaches that since the silicone is graft polymerized, the molecular weight is large and there is little loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface, and no decrease in physical properties because of the compatibility with the main material (p 3, last paragraph). Given that Sick modified with Tanaka suggests a turf fiber comprising a silicone graft polymer which is compatible with the main material and which is not lost on the surface due to large molecular weight, there is reasonable basis to conclude that modified Sick suggests a fiber wherein the silicone graft polymer resin is configured to remain immobile within the fiber such that migration is reduced during use.
As to claims 27 and 28, modified Sick suggests a turf fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Sick nor Tanaka require addition of a halogen compound, and Tanaka teaches disadvantages associated with utilizing silicone oil as a water repellency improver (p 3, bottom). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed the turf fiber of modified Sick without including halogen compounds (as they are not required by any cited reference) and without including free siloxanes (in order to avoid loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface).
Claim(s) 1 and 27-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick-2 et al (US 2020/0308777) in view of Tanaka (JP H11313751; machine translation cited herein) and Zhu et al (Effect of a Poly(dimethylsiloxane) Modified Polyolefin Additive on the Processing and Surface Properties of LLDPE; POLYM. ENG. SCI., 47:1309–1316, 2007).
As to claims 1, 29 and 34-37, Sick-2 discloses an artificial turf and artificial turf fiber (title, abstract) comprising a cylindrical core polymer mixture and a cladding polymer. The core polymer mixture comprises a core polymer and thread polymer embedded in the core [0009]. Sick-2 discloses an embodiment wherein the core polymer is polyethylene (a non-polar polymer, corresponding to the second polymer recited in instant claim 35) and the thread polymer is polyamide (a polar polymer, corresponding to the first polymer recited in instant claim 35) [0137], and wherein the mixture further comprises a compatibilizer [0133]. Sick-2 names several suitable types of compatibilizers in [0135], which correspond to the types recited in instant claim 37. In a preferred embodiment, the core polymer and the cladding polymer are both a polyethylene [0021], and the turf fibers are formed by coextrusion of the melted core component and the melted cladding polymer component [0049-54].
Sick-2 discloses that the core polymer mixture may comprise additional polymers or other additives [0066, 0095]. Sick-2 further teaches that the cladding may comprise additives [0126]. However, Sick-2 fails to teach including a polyethylene grafted with siloxane as an additive.
Tanaka similarly discloses an artificial turf with good drainage properties [0004] comprising a substrate and a large number of protrusions extending upward from the substrate [0006]. Tanaka teaches that the resin composition constituting the protruding body has a mixture of thermoplastic resin and silicone graft polymer. Tanaka names several examples of the thermoplastic resin, including polyethylene and polyamide [0006]. Tanaka teaches that the silicone graft polymer is obtained by graft polymerizing polydimethylsiloxane to a polymer having thermoplasticity, and names polyethylene as an example of the main chain of the silicone graft polymer [0008] (corresponding to a plurality of siloxane side chain blocks grafted onto a polyolefin backbone). Tanaka further teaches that, for example, when EVA is used as the main thermoplastic resin, the same type of EVA resin should also be used as the main chain of the silicone graft polymer from the viewpoint of improved compatibility [0008].
Tanaka teaches that the if the silicone content in the mixture is too low, the water-repellent effect is small, but if too high, slip resistance is small and target strength is significantly reduced (p 3, top). Tanaka further teaches that since the silicone is graft polymerized, the molecular weight is large and there is little loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface, and no decrease in physical properties because of the compatibility with the main material (p 3, last paragraph). Tanaka also discloses that silicone acts as a lubricant, such that releasability during molding is improved (p 4, top).
Zhu teaches that the processing of polyethylene in extrusion operations is plagued by the occurrence of extrudate defects caused by flow instabilities, originating from the fluid-boundary interactions and separation between the die wall and the polymer melt (p 1309, intro, first paragraph). Zhu teaches addition of processing aids into the molten polymer as an approach to solve extrudate defect problems, but that flow segregation of processing aids is driven by the incompatibility of the polyolefin and processing aids (p 1309, last two paragraphs). Zhu teaches that free polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is difficult to blend into polyolefin melts, but that a polyolefin grafted with PDMS (PMPO) processing aid is able to increase throughput of HDPE during extrusion, and are retained in the final blend without blooming (p 1310, first paragraph). Zhu shows that PMPO can be blended into LLDPE melt and is effective in reducing viscosity and increasing the throughput per energy input, and can postpone the shear rate at which LLDPE melt flow instability and extrudate defects occur (p 1316, conclusion). The polyolefin utilized to form Zhu’s PMPO is a polyethylene terpolymer (ethylene-ethyl acrylate maleic anhydride) (abstract, first sentence).
Considering Tanaka’s and Zhu’s disclosures, when preparing artificial turf fibers comprising polyethylene as a major polymer component, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a polymer grafted with siloxane as an additive in order to achieve any of the benefits taught by Tanaka (i.e., a desired degree of water-repellent effect, slip resistance and strength, improved releasability during molding) or Zhu (reduced melt flow instability and extrudate defects during extrusion). The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the main chain of the silicone graft polymer from the same type of resin (i.e., polyethylene) which forms the majority of the thermoplastic mixture, from the viewpoint of compatibility. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed an artificial turf fiber by coextrusion of a melted polyethylene cladding and melted core polymer component comprising polyethylene, polyamide and compatibilizer, as taught by Sick-2, by further including a polyethylene grafted with siloxane (as taught by Tanaka or Zhu) as an additive/processing aid in the cladding and/or core components in order to improve water-repellency and releasability, increase throughput per energy input, and reduce extrudate defects, thereby arriving at the presently claimed subject matter wherein the polymer backbone and the polymer constituting a main part of the base polymer are both polyethylene (i.e., chemically identical).
As noted above, Tanaka teaches that since the silicone is graft polymerized, the molecular weight is large and there is little loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface, and no decrease in physical properties because of the compatibility with the main material (p 3, last paragraph). Given that Sick-2 modified with Tanaka and Zhu suggests a turf fiber comprising a silicone graft polymer which is compatible with the main material and which is not lost on the surface due to large molecular weight, there is reasonable basis to conclude that modified Sick-2 suggests a fiber wherein the silicone graft polymer resin is configured to remain immobile within the fiber such that migration is reduced during use.
As to claims 27 and 28, modified Sick-2 suggests a turf fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Sick-2 nor Tanaka nor Zhu require addition of a halogen compound. Tanaka teaches disadvantages associated with utilizing silicone oil as a water repellency improver (p 3, bottom). Similarly, Zhu teaches disadvantages associated with free PDMS without bonding to polyolefin molecules (p 1310, upper left). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed the turf fiber of modified Sick-2 without including halogen compounds (as they are not required by any cited reference) and without including free siloxanes (in order to avoid blending difficulty and avoid loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface).
As to claim 31, modified Sick-2 suggests a fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tanaka teaches that because the molecular weight of the silicone graft polymer is very large, there is very little loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface, good compatibility with the main material and almost no decrease in mechanical strength (p 3, last paragraph). Zhu discloses PDMS-modified polyolefin obtained from PDMS having a molecular weight of 26,000 (p 1310, compounding). The molecular weight of Zhu’s graft copolymer having grafted PDMS chains with a Mw of 26,000 must be greater than 26,000 Dalton (and at least 50% of the molecules must have a molecular weight greater than 2000 Dalton). Considering Tanaka’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the fiber of Sick-2 utilizing a silicone graft polymer having a large molecular weight, such as a molecular weight greater than 26,000 as disclosed in Zhu, in order to minimize the loss of silicone due to bleeding and the decrease in mechanical strength associated with lower molecular weight materials.
As to claim 30, modified Sick-2 suggests a fiber according to claim 31, as set forth above, wherein the grafted polymer has a molecular weight greater than 2000 Dalton (meeting the molecular weight range recited in claim 30). None of the cited prior art references teach a content of polymer grafted with siloxane in an amount within a range of 0.01 to 0.25 wt% of a fiber. However:
Tanaka teaches that if the content of silicone in the mixture of graft polymer and resin is less than 0.5% by weight, the water-repellent effect is small, and if it is more than 10% by weight, slip resistance is small and it is not suitable for use as a flooring material, and target strength is significantly reduced (p 3, top half). Additionally, Zhu’s Table 2 (p 1314) shows throughput per unit energy input data for pure LLDPE and LLDPE blends with 1% or 5% PMPO-50, and finds that as the content of PMPO in LLDPE increases, the throughput per unit energy input increases (see also discussion on p 1313, right column). Zhu also teaches that the PDMS content in the PMPO is a determining factor in reducing both viscosity and stress; PDMS is regarded to be the active component responsible for improving extrudate defects and surface properties (p 1315, left column). Zhu teaches that by formulating with other components or varying the copolymer composition, a larger viscosity reduction can be achieved at a lower concentration, given the demonstrated trend that the higher amount of PDMS in the copolymer, the more effective the processing aid will be (p 1316, last full paragraph in left column).
Considering the disclosures of Tanaka and Zhu, the amount of siloxane-modified polyolefin in a blend with polyethylene was recognized in the art as a result effective variable. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from Tanaka and Zhu that as the amount of a polyolefin-g-siloxane in a blend with polyethylene increases, the viscosity of the blend decreases, the throughput per unit energy input increases, the extrudate defects decrease, and the water repellency and releasability increase (desired outcomes). One would have further recognized from Tanaka and Zhu that as the amount of a polyolefin-g-siloxane in a blend with polyethylene increases, slip resistance and strength decrease (undesired outcomes). Additionally, given Zhu’s disclosure (that PDMS is the active component and that increasing the amount of PDMS in the copolymer increases processing aid effectiveness), one would have recognized that as the amount of siloxane in the graft copolymer increases, the concentration of siloxane graft copolymer needed to achieve a certain effect in a polyethylene blend decreases.
Therefore, when forming an artificial turf fiber comprising polyethylene blended with a polyolefin-g-siloxane as a processing aid/additive in the cladding and/or core, as suggested by modified Sick-2, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any appropriate concentration of the polyolefin-g-siloxane additive in the polyethylene blend (taking into consideration the siloxane content within the graft copolymer) in order to achieve a desired degree of change in the properties known in the art to be modified by incorporating the siloxane additive in the blend. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed an artificial turf fiber comprising polyethylene blended with a polyolefin-g-siloxane additive in the cladding and/or in the core of the fiber, as suggested by modified Sick-2, utilizing any appropriate content of the polyolefin-g-siloxane additive in the polyethylene components (depending on a desired degree of the change in the properties known to be modified by the additive), including a content of polyolefin-g-siloxane additive which falls within the presently claimed range of 0.01 to 0.25 wt% of the fiber.
As to claim 32, modified Sick-2 suggests a fiber according to claim 1 wherein a plurality of siloxane side-chain-blocks are grafted onto a backbone consisting of polyolefin, as set forth above. Zhu describes the PMPO being fed to the extruder as “irregular flakes” (p 1313, right column), indicating that the polymer grafted with the siloxanes is a solid at room temperature.
As to claim 33, modified Sick-2 suggests a fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Sick-2 teaches two protrusions extending away from the core (i.e., the center of the fiber) in opposite directions [0023]. Sick-2 further teaches that the profile of a protrusion comprises an undulated section spanning at least 60% of one side of at least one protrusion [0071].
Claim(s) 1, 27-37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick-2 et al (US 2020/0308777) in view of Knebelkamp et al (EP 1211277, machine translation cited herein).
As to claims 1, 29 and 34-37, Sick-2 discloses an artificial turf and artificial turf fiber (title, abstract) comprising a cylindrical core polymer mixture and a cladding polymer. The core polymer mixture comprises a core polymer and thread polymer embedded in the core [0009]. Sick-2 discloses an embodiment wherein the core polymer is polyethylene (a non-polar polymer, corresponding to the second polymer recited in instant claim 35) and the thread polymer is polyamide (a polar polymer, corresponding to the first polymer recited in instant claim 35) [0137], and wherein the mixture further comprises a compatibilizer [0133]. Sick-2 names several suitable types of compatibilizers in [0135], which correspond to the types recited in instant claim 37. In a preferred embodiment, the core polymer and the cladding polymer are both a polyethylene [0021], and the turf fibers are formed by coextrusion of the melted core component and the melted cladding polymer component [0049-54].
Sick-2 discloses that the core polymer mixture may comprise additional polymers or other additives [0066, 0095]. Sick-2 further teaches that the cladding may comprise additives [0126]. However, Sick-2 fails to teach including a polyolefin grafted with siloxane as an additive.
Knebelkamp discloses that stresses on the surface of plastics means increased wear on the manufactured molded parts, but that such influences can be counteracted by additives [0002-3]. Knebelkamp teaches that polydimethylsiloxanes have favorable surface properties and are used in a number of applications to take advantage of low cohesive energies, high flexibility and low surface tension [0006]. They also migrate to the surface due to incompatibility with the base polymer, which promotes surface durability, but a permanent chemical bond of siloxane to polymer matrix is not guaranteed due to the nature of the blend [0010]. To solve this problem, Knebelkamp discloses a siloxane-modified polyolefin [0013] wherein organopolysiloxanes are linked to a polyolefin backbone via ester bonds [0015]. Knebelkamp names polyethylenes and polypropylenes as suitable for forming the siloxane-modified polyolefin [0029]. The compounds are introduced into molten polymer (polyethylene exemplified [0040]) and preferentially migrate to the surface to develop their properties there, but there is no delamination or separation [0017]. The additives are used to improve scratch resistance, weather resistance and hydrophobization [0019], [0026]. Knebelkamp teaches that concentrations at which the advantages of the modified polyolefins become apparent are in the range of 0.1 to 10% [0026]. Knebelkamp further shows that the addition of the siloxane-modified polyolefin to polypropylene reduces the power consumption in the extruder, lowers pressure buildup, and improves melt flow behavior [0042].
Considering Knebelkamp’s disclosure, when preparing a molded article from a thermoplastic polyolefin, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a polyolefin grafted with siloxane as an additive in order to improve scratch/weather resistance, and, to achieve a desired degree of hydrophobicity without risk of delamination, and/or, in order to lower power consumption and pressure build-up and improve melt flow behavior during extrusion. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed an artificial turf fiber by coextrusion of a melted polyethylene cladding and melted core polymer component comprising polyethylene, polyamide and compatibilizer, as taught by Sick-2, by further including a polyethylene grafted with siloxane (as taught by Knebelkamp) as an additive/processing aid in the cladding and/or core components, thereby arriving at the presently claimed subject matter wherein the polymer backbone and the polymer constituting a main part of the base polymer are both polyethylene (i.e., chemically identical).
Regarding the last three lines of claim 1: as discussed above, Knebelkamp teaches that the siloxane modified polyolefin compounds are introduced into molten polymer and preferentially migrate to the surface to develop their properties there before the polymer cures. However, due to the polymer content in the compounds, there is no delamination or separation after reaching the surface, as they are bound sufficiently firmly and permanently to the polymer [0017]. Considering Knebelkamp’s disclosure that the compounds are firmly and permanently bound and there is no delamination/separation, there is reasonable basis to conclude that once a composition comprising polyethylene, polyamide, and polyethylene grafted with siloxane (as suggested by modified Sick-2) is solidified to a fiber form, the siloxane-modified polyolefin component no longer has substantial mobility within the fiber, and, migration of siloxane to a surface of the fiber (i.e., delamination/separation) is reduced (e.g., compared to an embodiment using a siloxane additive which is not grafted to a polymer) once the fiber is in use.
As to claims 27 and 28, modified Sick-2 suggests a turf fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Sick-2 nor Knebelkamp require addition of a halogen compound, and Knebelkamp teaches disadvantages associated with incorporating free siloxane [0010]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed the turf fiber of modified Sick-2 without including halogen compounds (as they are not required by any cited reference) and without including free siloxanes (in order to avoid delamination).
As to claims 30 and 31, modified Sick-2 suggests a turf fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knebelkamp teaches a siloxane-modified polyolefin comprising (i) olefin units (D), wherein the molecular weight of (i) is 10,000 to 500,000 (see claim 1 on p 13 of the original document), which falls within the presently claimed range of larger than 500 Da (claim 30) and at least 2000 Dalton (claim 31). Knebelkamp further teaches that concentrations at which the advantages of the modified polyolefins become apparent are in the range of 0.1 to 10% [0026]. When forming a molded article by extruding a polyolefin, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize any appropriate concentration of modified polyolefin within Knebelkamp’s disclosed range in order to achieve a desired degree of modification of any one or more of the properties known to be affected by including Knebelkamp’s modified polyolefin. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed an artificial turf fiber comprising polyolefin in both the core and cladding components and further comprising a siloxane-modified polyolefin in the core and/or cladding component, as suggested by modified Sick-2, by selecting any appropriate concentration of modified polyolefin within Knebelkamp’s disclosed range of 0.1 to 10% in order to obtain the advantages associated with the modified polyolefin, including a concentration which falls within the presently claimed range of 0.01 to 0.25 wt% of the fiber.
As to claim 32, modified Sick-2 suggests a turf fiber according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of siloxane side-chain-blocks are grafted onto a backbone consisting of polyolefin, as set forth above. Knebelkamp. Knebelkamp exemplifies polyolefin-grafted with siloxane products that are prepared by reacting a molten mixture at 180 C, and which are solid after cooling [0034-7]. Therefore, the polyolefin:siloxane ratio must be such that the grafted products are solid at room temperature, as recited in claim 32.
As to claim 33, modified Sick-2 suggests a fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Sick-2 teaches two protrusions extending away from the core (i.e., the center of the fiber) in opposite directions [0023]. Sick-2 further teaches that the profile of a protrusion comprises an undulated section spanning at least 60% of one side of at least one protrusion [0071].
As to claim 39, modified Sick-2 suggests a fiber according to claim 1, as set forth above. Knebelkamp discloses that the modified siloxane radical has a formula II:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein “d” is from 5 to 1000, and R2 is a C1-C12 hydrocarbon radical (see, e.g., claim 1 of Knebelkamp). A dimethylsiloxane unit (i.e., one unit of “d” wherein R2 is C1) has a molecular weight of ~74, and therefore, radicals according to Knebelkamp’s formula II having 5 to 1000 dimethylsiloxane “d” units have molecular weights of siloxanes ranging from 444 Dalton (74*6) to ~74,000 Dalton (74*1001), which encompasses the presently claimed range of 4000 to 6000 Dalton. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected any siloxane molecular weight within the range taught by Knebelkamp in order to achieve the advantages of the additive taught by Knebelkamp, including a molecular weight within the presently claimed range of 4000 to 6000 Dalton. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick-2 et al (US 2020/0308777) in view of Knebelkamp et al (EP 1211277, machine translation cited herein), as evidenced by Archey et al (US 5986019).
The rejection of claim 39 over Sick-2 in view of Knebelkamp is incorporated here by reference. Knebelkamp further exemplifies Tegomer H-Si6720 as a commercially available product for introducing the siloxane residue into the polyolefin backbone [0030]. As evidenced by Archey, Tegomer H-Si6720 has a PDMS block length of about 70 repeat units (col 5, lines 37-41). A dimethylsiloxane unit has a molecular weight of ~74. Therefore, Knebelkamp exemplifies a siloxane residue having a molecular weight of ~5180 (70*74), which falls within the presently claimed range of 4000 to 6000.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 27-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/482231 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
An artificial turf fiber within the scope of instant claims 1 and 29 is recited in copending claims 27-29. There is reasonable basis to conclude that the properties recited in instant claim 1 are met at least in view of the recitations of copending claim 21 that the traction control agent stays homogenously dispersed for at least 10 years.
As to instant claims 27 and 28, no copending claim recites including a halogen or free siloxane, and therefore, the scope of claims 27 and 28 would have been immediately envisaged.
As to instant claims 30 and 31, the instant concentration and molecular weight limitations are recited in at least copending claims 25 (concentration) and 26 (molecular weight).
As to instant claim 32, the same requirement for a solid or wax-consistency at room temperature is recited in copending claim 28.
Claims 1 and 27-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/480110 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
An artificial turf fiber within the scope of instant claims 1 and 29 is recited in copending claim 22 and 27. There is reasonable basis to conclude that the properties recited in instant claim 1 are met at least in view of the recitations of copending claim 21 that the traction control agent stays homogenously dispersed for at least 10 years.
As to instant claims 27 and 28, no copending claim recites including a halogen or free siloxane, and therefore, the scope of claims 27 and 28 would have been immediately envisaged.
As to instant claims 30 and 31, the instant concentration and molecular weight limitations are recited in at least copending claims 25 (concentration) and 26 (molecular weight).
As to instant claim 32, the same requirement for a solid or wax-consistency at room temperature is recited in copending claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Tanaka:
Applicant argues (p 11) that Tanaka fails to disclose a graft copolymer having the specific structure required by claim 1. However, Applicant has not identified any specific difference between the recited graft copolymer and the graft copolymer taught by Tanaka, nor any specific feature of the recited graft copolymer which is not met by Tanaka. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not sufficient to overcome the rejection over Tanaka.
Applicant argues (pp 11-12) that Tanaka fails to meet the recited relationship between main base polymer and polymer backbone (i.e., that they must be chemically identical). However, Applicant has not explained why the recited relationship is not met by the example in Tanaka which is referenced in the last paragraph of the anticipation rejection (wherein both main base polymer and backbone are polyethylene, and therefore “chemically identical” as presently recited).
Applicant argues (pp 12-13) that Tanaka does not disclose the recited reduction in siloxane migration property recited in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive for at least the reason that Applicant has not provided any reasoning or explanation as to why this property would not necessarily be met by Tanaka. Additionally, Applicant’s argument does not appear to consider Tanaka’s teaching that since the silicone is graft polymerized, the molecular weight is large and there is little loss of silicone due to bleeding on the surface, and no decrease in physical properties because of the compatibility with the main material (p 3, last paragraph).
Regarding the rejection over Sick in view of Tanaka:
Applicant argues (p 14) that Sick’s disclosure to include unspecified additives does not suggest the incorporation of the specific recited polyolefin grafted with siloxane. However, secondary reference Tanaka was relied on for the teaching, and motivation, to include a polyolefin grafted with siloxane. There is no requirement when making a prima facie case of obviousness that a motivation to modify a primary reference must be found within the primary reference.
Applicant argues (p 14) that Tanaka does not suggest a three-phase polymer mixture, nor a teaching/suggestion that graft copolymers would be compatible with the polymer system of Sick. However, Tanaka teaches both polyethylene and polyamide as suitable examples of thermoplastic resins [0006], which are the same types of polymers forming the majority of Sick’s fiber. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for at least the reason that the substantial similarities between the types of polymers taught in both Sick and Tanaka for the formation of fibers is sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of compatibility between Tanaka’s graft polymer and the polymer system taught by Sick.
Applicant argues (pp 15, 19 and 22) that the rejection relies on hindsight. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered; however, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues (pp 15-16) that the rejection treats the claimed graft polymer as merely one of many routine additives that could be included in Sick’s mixture. This argument is not persuasive as it does not properly consider the manner in which Tanaka was relied on to establish obviousness.
Regarding the rejection over Sick-2 in view of Tanaka and Zhu:
Applicant argues that Tanaka teaches a fiber formed from a thermoplastic resin and a silicone graft copolymer, while Sick-2 discloses a different multi-phase polymer mixture. Applicant argues that nothing in Tanaka suggests incorporating the silicone graft polymer into Sick-2’s polyethylene/polyamide mixture. This argument is unpersuasive for at least the reason that Tanaka teaches that the thermoplastic resin component of the fiber can be mixtures of resins [0006]. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing Tanaka’s graft polymer to improve upon a fiber formed from a polymer mixture, particularly a polymer mixture (as taught by Sick-2) wherein the mixed polymers (polyethylene and polyamide) are both types of polymers which are named by Tanaka.
Applicant argues (pp 17-18) that Sick-2 does not rely on silicone additives, and therefore one would not have been motivated to include Tanaka’s silicone graft polymers in the fibers of Sick-2. However, Applicant’s argument does not appear to consider that Tanaka discloses benefits (such as water-repellent effect and releasability during molding) associated with the use of silicone additives in artificial turf fibers. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for at least the reason that Tanaka’s disclosed reasons to utilize silicone graft polymers include benefits associated with the use of silicone additives in turf fibers; Tanaka’s disclosure is not limited solely to benefits associated with replacing silicone oil additives with silicone graft polymers.
Applicant argues (p 18) that the rejection does not address how Tanaka’s concentration dependent system would operate within the complex multiphase polymer mixture disclosed in Sick-2. However, as set forth in the rejection of record, Sick-2 teaches that additives may be used. Sick-2 does not place any limit on the content or concentration of such additives. For at least this reason, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, as there is no teaching in Sick-2 which would discourage the inclusion of an additive in an amount within the range taught by Tanaka.
Applicant argues (p 19) that one would not modify Sick-2 with Tanaka or Zhu because Sick-2 is directed toward mechanical performance, while Tanaka is concerned with improving surface-related properties and Zhu addresses die-wall slip and extrusion throughput. However, this argument is not persuasive for at least the reason that Applicant has not explained why one would not desire to further improve the processability and/or surface properties of a fiber which has been designed to have improved mechanical properties.
Regarding the rejection over Sick-2 in view of Knebelkamp:
Applicant argues (p 21) that incorporating a surface-migrating additive, as taught in Knebelkamp, into the controlled multi-phase polymer of Sick-2 would risk disrupting the phase structure and altering the internal morphology of the fiber taught by Sick-2.
This argument fails to overcome the rejection over Sick-2 in view of Knebelkamp for at least the reason that (as set forth in the rejection of record) Sick-2 in view of Knebelkamp suggest a fiber wherein the siloxane-modified polyolefin additive is included in the cladding and/or core components of the fiber. In other words, Applicant’s argument is not applicable to embodiments, which are encompassed by at least some of the instant claims and which are suggested by Sick-2 and Knebelkamp, wherein the additive is included only in the cladding and not in the core, because the cladding of Sick-2’s fiber is formed only from polyethylene (i.e., the cladding is not multiphase).
With regard to embodiments, which are encompassed by the instant claims and which are suggested by Sick-2 and Knebelkamp, wherein the siloxane additive is included in both the cladding and the core:
Sick-2 teaches that the core polymer mixture comprises a thread polymer, core polymer and a compatibilizer (three phase system). Sick-2 teaches that various additives can be added to the core polymer mixture, and, that additional polymers can be added to increase the three-phase system to a four-, five-, or more-phase system [0066]. Sick-2 teaches that the core polymer mixture can be prepared by putting all components together in a one-screw extrusion method, and teaches that the thread polymer, core polymer and compatibilizer can be put together at the same time as additional polymers or other additives [0095]. Considering Sick-2’s disclosure that additives and additional polymers can be added to the core polymer mixture, and further considering that Sick-2 does not warn of any adverse effects to the fiber phase structure or morphology associated with including additives or additional polymers in the core polymer mixture, Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would have been discouraged from modifying Sick-2 by including Knebelkamp’s siloxane additive in the core is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pp 22-23) that the instant claims recite a range which extends below the lower limit of the range disclosed by Knebelkamp, and therefore, the claimed concentration range is not disclosed or suggested by Knebelkamp. However, case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant has not demonstrated criticality associated with the presently claimed range, and therefore, the cited prior art suggests a fiber comprising siloxane-modified polyolefin in amounts within the presently claimed range for at least the reason that the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art.
As to the double patenting rejections:
Applicant's lack of response to the cited rejections has not been treated as non-responsive under 37 CFR 1.111(b). However, since the rejections are considered proper they will be maintained until such time as a complete response to them is filed or conditions appropriate for removal of the rejections are present. See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1).
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 RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights