DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on July 13, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 4, 16, 19, 24, and 30 are amended, claims 6-9, 11, 13, 20, 23, 31-37, and 42 are cancelled, claims 19, 21-22, 24-29, 38-41, and 43 are withdrawn, and claim 44 is new, resulting in claims 1-5, 10, 12, 14-18, 30, and 44 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 30, 44, 1-3, 5, 10, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP 2004-143637)1,2 in view of Nisikawa (US 2010/0247814)2, De Clerck (US 2006/0093783)2, and Avery (US 4705706)2. Supporting evidence provided by Selke (“4. Major Plastics in Packaging” from Plastics Packaging – Properties, Processing, Applications, and Regulations)2.
With respect to claim 30, Usuda teaches a thermoplastic resin tufting mat constructed by tufting pile yarns onto a primary backing to form a pile fabric (paragraph [0018] on page 6), in which the primary backing fabric, internally-bonded thermoplastic resin sheet, and pile yarns are all made of polyolefin (paragraph [0012] on page 4). The primary base fabric is a fabric-like material made of filaments (paragraph [0018] on page 6) which are preferably made of high density polyethylene (paragraph [0020] on page 7). The thermoplastic resin tufting mat may be an artificial turf (paragraph [0014] on page 5).
With respect to the primary backing layer comprising a plurality of sublayers, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to provide multiple base layers in order to provide increased mechanical strength to the resulting article (see e.g., paragraph [0039] on page 12). The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. The pile yarns are tufted into the primary backing fabric (paragraph [0012], page 4), therefore the sublayers of the primary backing would be joined together by the pile yarns.
Usuda further teaches the pile yarns may be high-density polyethylene, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, or polyamide, among others (paragraph [0037] on page 12), however is silent as to the specific selection of a polyethylene, specifically a polyethylene that fulfills the claimed density ratio and/or melting temperature relationship.
Nisikawa teaches an artificial turf comprising a primary backing and piles implanted therein (paragraph [0042]). A material for the pile is preferably low density polyethylene in consideration of recyclability (paragraph [0043]).
Since both Usuda and Nisikawa teach artificial turf comprising low density polyethylene pile fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pile yarns of Usuda to be low density polyethylene in order to provide better recyclability of the article.
With respect to the claimed density ratio and/or melting temperature relationship, Usuda further teaches the filaments of the base layer are preferably high density polyethylene having a density of 0.930-0.970 g/cm3, preferably 0.940-0.960 g/cm3 (paragraph [0020] on page 7). Furthermore it is known in the art that LDPE has a density from 0.910-0.925 g/cm3 (Selke; 4.1.1 Low Density Polyethylene, Table 4.1). Therefore the turf of Usuda in view of Nisikawa has a first density of the HDPE backing filaments to the LDPE pile filaments of 1.01-1.06.
Additionally it is known in the art that LDPE has a melting point of 105-115oC (Selke; 4.1.1 Low Density Polyethylene, Table 4.1) and HDPE has a melting point of 128-138oC (Selke; 4.2.1 High Density Polyethylene, Table 4.3). Therefore the turf of Usuda in view of Nisikawa has a first melting temperature of the HDPE backing filaments that is at least 2 degrees higher than the LDPE pile filaments.
Usuda further teaches the layers of the tufting mat are all formed from a polyolefin as by using only polyolefin the tufting mat can be easily recovered and recycled (paragraph [0054] on page 16). However, Usuda in view of Nisikawa is silent as to the artificial substrate consisting entirely of polyethylene.
De Clerck teaches a synthetic turf comprising a pile fabric having a backing and tufts projecting therefrom (paragraph [0001]). De Clerck further teaches that when an artificial turf is made from polyethylene instead of a combination of polyethylene and polypropylene it is easier to recycle and has a softer touch (paragraph [0016]).
Since both Usuda in view of Nisikawa and De Clerck teach polyolefin tufted mats made of polyolefins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tufted mat of Usuda in view of Nisikawa to be made from only polypropylene in order to provide a tufted mat that is easier to recycle and has a softer touch.
Nisikawa further teaches the pile may be a bundle of monofilament yarns (paragraph [0045]). However, Usuda in view of Nisikawa is silent as to the bundles having a linear density between 10000 and 15000 detx.
De Clerck further teaches the tufts of the pile fabric are made by composite yarn where the yarn number is selected in such a manner that the pile fabric immediately resembles grass without post-fibrillation (paragraph [0030]). The yarn number of the composite yarn will usually be larger than 9000 and preferably larger than 11000 dtex in order to provide a yarn with a large number of filaments, however due to limitations of the tufting machine the yarn number will usually be smaller than 20000, more particularly smaller than 17000 dtex (paragraph [0031]).
The tuft fineness range of De Clerck substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 30. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by De Clerck, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Usuda in view of Nisikawa and De Clerck teach polyolefin tufted mats made of polyolefins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tufts of Usuda in view of Nisikawa to have a fineness of 11000-17000 dtex in order to provide a pile that resembles grass.
Nisikawa further teaches the pile may be a bundle of monofilament yarns (paragraph [0045]). However, Usuda in view of Nisikawa and De Clerck is silent as to the bundles of monofilaments being at least partly melted to each other.
Avery teaches back-loops of the stitches of pile yarn of a tufted carpet are fastened to the backing by thermal bonding, obviating the need for applying an adhesive coating (col. 2, lines 15-18). This method allows for the locking of stitches to the backing (col. 4, lines 5-10). The tufted carpet may be used as an artificial turf (col. 2, lines 28-31).
Since both Usuda in view of Nisikawa and Avery teach tufted artificial turf, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pile bundles of Usuda in view of Nisikawa to be fastened to the back layer by thermal bonding to lock the stitches to the backing and obviate the need for applying an adhesive coating. The process of thermally bonding the pile bundles to the back layer would necessarily result in the bundles at least partly melting to each other and molding around the backing filaments.
With respect to claim 44, Usuda in view of Nisikawa, De Clerck, and Avery teaches all the limitations of claim 30 above. As discussed in the rejection of claim 30 above, De Clerck teaches that the all the materials being made of polyethylene make it easier to recycle the synthetic turf (paragraph [0034]).
With respect to claims 1-2, Usuda in view of Nisikawa, De Clerck, and Avery teaches all the limitations of claim 30 above. Usuda further teaches the filaments of the base layer are preferably high density polyethylene having a density of 0.930-0.970 g/cm3, preferably 0.940-0.960 g/cm3 (paragraph [0020] on page 7).
The density range of Usuda substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 1-2. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Usuda, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 3, Usuda in view of Nisikawa, De Clerck, and Avery teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Usuda further teaches the HDPE has an MFR of 0.2 to 10.0 g/10 min, preferably 0.3-3.0 g/10 min (paragraph [0020] on page 7).
The melt flow rate range of Usuda substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 3. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Usuda, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 5, Usuda in view of Nisikawa, De Clerck, and Avery teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. It is known in the art that HDPE has a melting point of 128-138oC (Selke; 4.2.1 High Density Polyethylene, Table 4.3).
With respect to claim 10, Usuda in view of Nisikawa, De Clerck, and Avery teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Example 1 of Usuda teaches high density polyethylene was formed into a film which was then formed into a stretched tape with a single yarn fineness of 1900 dtex and woven into a fabric having a warp and weft count of 14x14 threads into which pile yarn was tufted to form the pile fabric (paragraph [0058] on pages 17-18). Both the ratio of warp to weft filaments and the ratio of the warp filament linear density to the weft filament linear density is 1, therefore the ratio of warp filaments to weft filaments is inverse to a ratio of warp filament linear density to weft filament linear density.
With respect to claim 12, Usuda in view of Nisikawa, De Clerck, and Avery teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Usuda further teaches in Example 1 the HDPE has a single yarn fineness of 1900 dtex (paragraph [0058] on page 17).
With respect to claim 16, Usuda in view of Nisikawa, De Clerck, and Avery teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Usuda further teaches additives can be added to the thermoplastic resins forming the base layer including light stabilizers, ultraviolet absorbers, antistatic agents, dispersants, chlorine scavengers, lubricants, metal deactivators, flame retardants, organic pigments, inorganic pigments, inorganic fillers, organic fillers, and antibacterial agents (paragraph [0024] on page 8).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP 2004-143637)3,4 in view of Nisikawa (US 2010/0247814)2, De Clerck (US 2006/0093783)2, and Avery (US 4705706)2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandkuehler (US 2013/0209707)2.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Usuda in view of Nisikawa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Usuda further teaches the filaments of the base layer are preferably high density polyethylene having a density of 0.930-0.970 g/cm3, preferably 0.940-0.960 g/cm3 (paragraph [0020] on page 7) and has an MFR of 0.2 to 10.0 g/10 min, preferably 0.3-3.0 g/10 min (paragraph [0020] on page 7).
Usuda in view of Nisikawa is silent as to the high density polyethylene having a unimodal weight distribution and a strain at break of between 10 and 40%.
Sandkuehler teaches tapes and monofilaments of a polyethylene composition, a process for making the same, and processes for fabricating artificial turf therefrom (paragraph [0001]). The polyethylene composition of the tape or monofilament has a density in the range of 0.920-0.970 g/cm3, a molecular weight distribution (Mw-/Mn) in the range of 1.70 to 3.50, a melt index in the range of 0.2 to 50 g/10 min, and a molecular weight distribution (M-z/Mw) in the range of less than 2.5 (paragraph [0004]). The compositions only have one molecular weight value and one molecular weight distribution value (Table II), therefore it is reasonable to presume the polyethylene is unimodal. These properties of the polyethylene composition when combined with the steps of orienting the tapes and/or monofilaments help to impart synergistic improvements in the durability, tenacity, residual elongation and softness in the resulting tapes and/or monofilaments (paragraph [0014]). Sandkuehler further teaches the tapes and/or monofilaments can be woven into an artificial turf (paragraph [0087]).
Since both Usuda in view of Nisikawa and Sandkuehler teach polyethylene tapes comprising similar densities and melt indexes suitable for use in artificial turf it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the HDPE filaments of Usuda in view of Nisikawa to have a molecular weight distribution (Mw-/Mn) in the range of 1.70 to 3.50 and a molecular weight distribution (M-z/Mw) in the range of less than 2.5 in order to provide filaments that have improved durability, tenacity, residual elongation and softness. As can be seen in Fig. 2 these filaments provide an elongation at break of 15-35% (Fig. 2; paragraph [0013]).
It is further noted that Sandkuelher states that it is the properties of the polyethylene in addition to orienting the filaments which provides the desired filament properties (paragraph [0014]). Paragraph [0074] of Sandkuelher describes the orientation process as being achieved by stretching film or tape while passing it through an air oven or a hot plate. Similarly, Usuda teaches stretching HDPE tape on a hot plate (Usuda; paragraph [0058] on page 17). Therefore, the beneficial properties discussed by Sandkuelher are expected to be present in the HDPE filament of Usuda in view of Nisikawa and Sandkuelher.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further applied an orientation process to the filament of Usuda in view of Nisikawa in order to provide filaments that have improved durability, tenacity, residual elongation and softness.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP 2004-143637)5,6 in view of Nisikawa (US 2010/0247814)2, De Clerck (US 2006/0093783)2, and Avery (US 4705706)2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 111575937)1,2.
With respect to claim 14, Usuda in view of Nisikawa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Usuda in view of Nisikawa is silent as to the base layer having a fabric weight between 80 and 400 g/m2.
Li teaches an artificial turf base fabric (paragraph [0002]) with a basis weight of 50-400 g/m2 (paragraph [0014]). The strength of the artificial turf is linearly related to the base fabric weight (paragraph [0015]). If the weight of the base fabric is less than 50 g/m2 then the tuft strength is poor and if it is greater than 400 g/m2 then the base fabric is too thick and the tufting process is prone to needle breakage (paragraph [0015]).
The fabric weight range of Li substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 14. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Li, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Usuda in view of Nisikawa and Li teach base fabrics for artificial turf, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base layer of Usuda in view of Nisikawa to have a basis weight of 50-400 g/m2 in order to provide sufficient strength to the artificial turf without being detrimental to the tufting process.
With respect to claim 17, Usuda in view of Nisikawa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Usuda in view of Nisikawa is silent as to the base layer being heat-stabilized.
Li teaches an artificial turf base fabric (paragraph [0002]) that is heat-set in an oven to achieve a lower shrinkage rate (paragraphs [0017], [0031]).
Since both Usuda in view of Nisikawa and Li teach base fabrics for artificial turf, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base layer of Usuda in view of Nisikawa to be heat-set in order to achieve a lower shrinkage rate.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP 2004-143637)7,8 in view of Nisikawa (US 2010/0247814)2, De Clerck (US 2006/0093783)2, and Avery (US 4705706)2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urrutia (US 2021/0332534)2.
With respect to claim 18, Usuda in view of Nisikawa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Usuda in view of Nisikawa is silent as to the filaments having one or more elongate ribs of grooves along their longitudinal direction.
Urrutia teaches tufted geotextiles that engage a ground surface or an underlying component (paragraph [0020]). The geotextile comprises a textured face formed by a field of projecting stubs or peaked tapered spikes or pins in order to increase frictional contact to resist movement and slippage relative to the ground and to provide increased frictional engagement with the tufting yarns (paragraph [0023]).
Since both Usuda in view of Nisikawa and Urrutia teach tufted articles for covering the ground, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filaments of the backing layer of Usuda in view of Nisikawa to have projecting stubs or peaked tapered spikes or pins in order to increase frictional contact to resist movement and slippage relative to the ground and to provide increased frictional engagement with the tufting yarns.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 36, 4, and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed July 13, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Machine translation used as reference
2 Previously presented
3 Machine translation used as reference
4 Previously presented
5 Machine translation used as reference
6 Previously presented
7 Machine translation used as reference
8 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights