DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 September 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-2, 4-16, 18-27, 29, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IT MI20131235 to M. Gilardi, a translation of which is provided herewith and referred-to herein, (“Gilardi”) in view of KR 20170105233 to Choi et al., a translation of which is provided herewith and referred-to herein, (“Choi”).
With regard to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 15, 21, 25, and 27 Gilardi teaches an artificial turf system and infill particles therefor, the particles comprising a cellulosic and/or hemicellulosic material impregnated with salt as an alternative to thermoplastic materials, and manufacture thereof (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0006], [0014], [0019], [0028], [0041]-[0042]). According to Gilardi, the particles are impregnated with salt at up to 15% by weight (see ¶ [0042]).
Gilardi suggests usage of commonly sized particle materials; however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed particle volume. Choi is similarly directed to salt-impregnated cellulosic artificial turf material and production thereof, and teaches particles with a range of diameter sizes which would yield particle volumes within the claimed range (see ¶¶ [0011], [0020]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used particles featuring volumes within the claimed range in the product and process of Gilardi as taught by Choi with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to Claim 8, Gilardi teaches cuboid, spherical, and ellipsoid particle shapes and Choi teaches spherical particle shapes (see Gilardi at ¶ [0027]; Choi at ¶ [0033]).
With regard to Claims 9-10, Choi teaches removing particle edges (see ¶¶ [0012], [0035]).
With regard to Claims 11-13, Gilardi and Choi teach wood substrates (see Gilardi at ¶ [0028]; Choi at ¶ [0032]).
With regard to Claim 14, Gilardi and Choi teach usage of wood material without particular limitation; however the references do not expressly teach birch wood. In view of the broad teachings of Gilardi and Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used any type of wood substrate material with a reasonable expectation of success, including the claimed species, for a variety of purposes including availability and material cost.
With regard to Claim 16, Choi teaches treatment with a natural preservative (see ¶¶ [0011], [0043]).
With regard to Claims 18-20, Choi teaches a mixture of particle shapes and sizes (see ¶¶ [0011], [0020], [0032], [0035])
With regard to Claims 22-23 and 32-33, Choi teaches removing edges and corners from the wood material and drying after impregnating with preservative (see ¶¶ [0009], [0035], [0039]). Choi does not expressly teach the temperature of drying operations; however, similar to Gilardi, the reference teaches an aqueous impregnation medium (see Gilardi at ¶ [0041], Choi at ¶ [0013]). It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have conducted drying at temperatures up to the boiling point of water to remove residual moisture during drying operations.
With regard to Claim 24 Choi teaches impregnation duration within the claimed range (see ¶ [0037]).
With regard to Claim 26, Gilardi and Choi teach turf systems further comprising sand (see Gilardi at ¶ [0032]; Choi at ¶ [0002]).
With regard to Claim 29, Gilardi does not expressly teach the claimed salt content. Choi teaches high salt concentration is desirable since the material acts as a preservative and binder, and prevents insect parasites (see ¶¶ [0023]-[0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the claimed salt content throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in obtaining an infill particle featuring a desired degree of preservative, binder, and insecticidal properties as taught by Choi.
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilardi in view of Choi as applied to Claim 16, and further in view of US 2022/0162810 to Nusca et al., effectively filed 20 March 2019, (“Nusca”).
With regard to Claim 17, Gilardi and Choi do not teach treatment with linseed oil. Nusca is similarly directed to treatment of vegetative material for use as infill in artificial turf systems, and teaches treatment with linseed oil to improve the properties thereof (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0023]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have treated the cellulosic material of Gilardi and Choi with linseed oil in order to improve the properties thereof.
3. Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilardi in view of Choi as applied to Claim 8, and further in view of US 2019/0203425 to Sawyer et al. (“Sawyer”).
With regard to Claims 30-31, Gilardi and Choi do not expressly teach the claimed cuboid shape dimensions. Sawyer is similarly directed to artificial turf systems and infill therefor, and teaches cubic particles usefully provide infill layer stability owing to void-filling properties (see ¶ [0097]). Sawyer further notes that particle aspect ratio governs infill particle interlock (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed cube particles with dimensions within the claimed range throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in obtaining an infill with a desired degree of stability-conferring bulk.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 August 2025 have been fully considered in view of the claims as amended, but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gilardi discloses dispersing salt throughout the entirety of an infill layer instead of via particle impregnation (see Response at Pgs. 8-9). This argument is not found persuasive. Gilardi teaches advantageously premixing infill components and addition of salt such that it is “contained or retained” in the infill material via such means as application by an aqueous salt solution (see ¶¶ [0034], [0036], [0041]-[0042]).
Applicant argues that Gilardi and Choi do not teach particle impregnation (see Response at Pg. 10). This argument is not found persuasive. Choi teaches impregnation compositions applied to infill particles permeate therethrough (see ¶¶ [0012], [0025]).
Accordingly, the rejections previously set forth are maintained and new rejections in response to new claims are presented herein.
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 Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715