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 presented on 12/12/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1 and 27-39), and species wherein the base polymer comprises first and second polymers and a compatibilizer (as in claims 34-37), and wherein the fiber has a core and a cladding (as in figures 1B-1D) in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden to examine all claims. This is not found persuasive because search burden is not a requirement for restriction of national stage applications filed under 35 USC 371. The unity of invention practice is applied to national stage application filed under 35 USC 371, as described in MPEP 1850. See MPEP 201. A proper prior lack of unity analysis was set forth.
Applicant further argues that species requirement “b” confuses shape aspects with extrusion technology, and that a fiber can have any cross-section shape regardless of whether the fiber has a cladding or not. However, the requirement in “b” was to select between fibers having no cladding (iii) and fibers having a core and a cladding (iv). Applicant has not explained why a fiber having no cladding (i.e., a monocomponent fiber) and a fiber having a core and cladding (i.e., a bicomponent fiber) are not mutually exclusive species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 38 (non-elected species) and claims 40-45 (non-elected invention) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the fourth line of claim 36, “base polymer” should be replaced with “first polymer.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 37 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 37 recites a compatibilizer which must be selected from a Markush group of types of compatibilizers, but includes the term “such as” in lines 4-5. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, claim 37 recites a compatibilizer which must be selected from a Markush group of types of compatibilizers. However, Applicant is requested to review the chemical names for clarity, and to more distinctly separate each recited type of compatibilizer within the list. For example, it appears several types of the compatibilizers within the list are separated by a semi-colon, but this is not consistent, as some species appear to be separated with commas (see graft copolymers in lines 5-6). It is also not clear if “a polyolefin-graft-polyamide, polyethylene or polyamide” in the second to last line is meant to imply that polyethylene or polyamide alone could be a compatibilizer, or, whether “polyethylene or polyamide” are somehow types of grafts connected to the preceding “polyolefin-graft-polyamide.” It is further unclear what species of compatibilizers would be encompassed by the term “polyacrylic acid type” (see last line).
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.
Claims 35-37 are 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 recites “a base polymer,” and then recites that “the base polymer” is selected from a group consisting of five specific polymers.
Claims 35-37 depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 34. Claim 35 recites that “the base polymer” comprises a first polymer, a second polymer, and a compatibilizer. Claim 36 recites that “the base polymer” comprises a first polymer and a second polymer. However, claim 34 does not recite that “the base polymer” can be a mixture, and further does not recite any compatibilizer component within the list of alternatives defining “the base polymer.” Therefore, claims 35 and 36 fail to properly further limit claim 34. Similarly, the compatibilizers recited in claim 37 are not recited among the list of alternatives defining “the base polymer” in claim 34.
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.
Applicant may wish to consider amending claim 34 to replace “wherein the base polymer is selected from” with language such as “wherein the base polymer comprises at least one selected from” in order to resolve the issues raised under 35 USC 112(d) within claims 35-37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 as evidenced by Horio [0068; C-1], and therefore, Tanaka’s exemplified artificial turf fibers meet instant claims 1, 29, 34. The antioxidant and light stabilizer added in Tanaka’s example 1 do not contain halogen or free siloxanes, and therefore, Tanaka’s example meets instant claims 27 and 28.
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.
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 34-36 (see [0051] for disclosure of compatibilizer surrounding threadlike regions). Sick discloses an example wherein the first polymer is polyamide and the second polymer is polyethylene [0019], which meets instant claims 35 and 36. Sick names several suitable types of compatibilizers in [0043], which correspond to the types recited in instant claim 37.
Sick discloses that the polymer mixture may comprise additives [0072], however, Sick fails to teach including a polyolefin 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 and polypropylene as examples 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 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 thermoplastic polymers such as polyethylene and polyamide, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a polyolefin (polyethylene or polypropylene) 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. 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, polyethylene, compatibilizer and additives [0072], as taught by Sick, by further including a polyolefin (polyethylene or polypropylene) grafted with siloxane in order to improve water-repellency and releasability, as taught by Tanaka, thereby arriving at the presently claimed subject matter.
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 polyolefin 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 and polypropylene as examples 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 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 from polyethylene, 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 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). 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 polyolefin (i.e., 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.
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, included 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 such as polyethylene, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a polyolefin (polyethylene or polypropylene) 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 polyolefin (i.e., 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.
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, included 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
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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 claim 25 or 27.
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 25 or 27.
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.
Conclusion
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