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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 10/25/25 has been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-12 have been amended and new claims 13-19 have been added as requested. Applicant’s amendments are not found sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejections based on the cited prior art of Lee et al., and Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive of patentability for reasons set forth below. In addition, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 raise indefinite issues with respect to 112 2nd paragraph. The following new ground of 112 2nd paragraph rejections are set forth herein below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants argue that the cited prior art of Lee et al., US 11840809 B2 alone or in combination with the cited KR101855284B1 reference does not teach the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicants assert that Lee et al., does not teach the claimed first and second net layers comprising openings (meshes) that overlap such that natural grass can cross both first and second net layers. In response, this argument is not found persuasive. With regard to the first net layer, Lee et al., teach that the hybrid turf support layer (40) is knitted such that there is a plurality of openings to allow for natural vegetation between the interstices (column 16, 30-40). Said openings (interstices) are square and spaced from 3-50 mm apart (column 16, 30-40). As such, the Examiner maintains that the first net layer limitations are met. With regard to the claimed second net layer of claim 1, Lee et al., further teach a retention backing layer (41) (figure 8). Lee et al., teach that a retention backing may be used in addition to the hybrid turf support to retain the growth media in place while infilling. A retention backing may also be desirable in some instances when infilling onsite installations at the target site, e.g. sporting venue. Typically, transport and installation of a hybrid turf system relies on the retention backing providing the necessary support through the processes to guarantee the integrity of each turf roll. Further, depending on the choice of retention backing, it may be that the hybrid turf system of the invention can better accommodate standard turf management techniques, including solid or hollow-tine aeration and mechanical cleaning (column 11, 5-15). Lee et al., teach that said retention backing layer would typically be root permeable and free draining. These materials include both biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials as well as combinations of both biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials. The biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials may be woven together into a single layer backing or the backing may comprise a layer of biodegradable material and a layer of non-biodegradable material. Examples of biodegradable retention backings are woven viscose, cotton, or jute/hessian (100 g/sqm-300 g/sqm), preferably viscose 240 g/sqm. (column 11, -20-35 and figure 8). The Examiner is of the position that a woven textile would have the claimed net/mesh openings since most move textiles are made using warp and weft yarns that crossover to form openings. Lee et al., does not specifically teach the size or the shape of the openings but since woven fabrics are typically formed by weaving vertical and horizontal (warp and weft) yarns it is expected that the openings would be square in shape. With regard to the size of the openings, the Examiner is of the position that size and spacing of the openings are a function of the type of weave (plain, twill, satin etc.). However, since the woven retention backing layer (41) is intended to be positioned adjacent to the knitted supporting turf layer (40) and further intended to be root permeable and free draining the Examiner is of the position that the mesh/net openings of the woven retention backing layer (41) would also be square with a similar size and spacing of the net/mesh openings of the knitted supporting turf layer (40). (figure 8). The Examiner is further of the position that it is expected that the openings present in the woven retention backing layer and knitted hybrid support layer would intentionally overlap to allow natural vegetation (growth media) to pass through the layers. Such an embodiment is illustrated in figure 8 wherein it is shown that the natural vegetation (growth media) (43) passes through each of the woven retention backing layer and the knitted supporting hybrid turf layer. In other words, the Examiner is of the position that there would be “substantial” overlap with respect to the openings in each of the layers as claimed. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that cited prior art of Lee et al., in combination with the cited KR reference still meets the structural and biodegradable limitations of claim 1 as set forth above and previously set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 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.
5. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the natural grass" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is further indefinite because of term “substantial” is considered relative. The term “substantial” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is not clear how the mesh openings “allow natural grass to take root”. It appears the openings function to allow the natural grass to pass through the individual layers. Claim 1 is further indefinite because of the term “adapted”. With regard to the recitations of “adapted”, “thereby” and/or “whereby”. Said terms are not considered positive limitations. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses. The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d
6. Claim 9 is indefinite because further indefinite because it is not clear how the mesh openings “allow natural grass to take root”. It appears the openings function to allow the natural grass to pass through the individual layers. Claim 9 also recites the limitation "the natural grass" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
7. Claim 10 is further indefinite because of term “substantial” is considered relative. The term “substantial” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 10 is further because of the term “adapted”. With regard to the recitations of “adapted”, “thereby” and/or “whereby”. Said terms are not considered positive limitations. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses. The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d
8. Claims 2, 4-8, 11-17 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-5, 9-12 stand rejected and new claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 11840809 B2 in view of KR101855284B1.
The patent issued to Lee et al., teach a hybrid turf composite comprising grass like fibers (45), a hybrid turf support (40), a retention backing layer (41), a supporting turf surface (42) and a layer of growth media (43) (title, abstract, figure 7, column 17, 25-45). Said grass like fibers can be made from mixtures of biodegradable synthetic materials and biodegradable non-synthetic materials (column 8, 30-40). Said grass-like fibers can be grouped together as shown in figure 7. The Examiner considers this sufficient to meet the limitation of “skeins” as set forth in claims 2 and 13. Lee et al., does not teach the twisting limitation of claim 13 and/or density of claim 17, however, the Examiner is of the position that based on the desired end use of the turf, turf properties and/or aesthetics it would be obvious to vary the density and how the grass-like fibers are grouped together. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA). With regard to the claimed first layer “net” limitations of claims 1 and 3, Lee et al., teach that the hybrid turf support layer (40) is knitted such that there is a plurality of openings to allow for natural vegetation between the interstices (column 16, 30-40). Said openings (interstices) are square and spaced from 3-50 mm apart (column 16, 30-40). Such a range overlaps the range set forth in claim 11 and 15. The Examiner is of the position that grass blades(vegetation) would also present as recited in claim 12 and 19 (figure 8). With regard to the claimed second net layer of claims 1 and 9, Lee et al., further teach a retention backing layer (41) (figure 8). Lee et al., teach that a retention backing may be used in addition to the hybrid turf support to retain the growth media in place while infilling. A retention backing may also be desirable in some instances when infilling onsite installations at the target site, e.g. sporting venue. Typically, transport and installation of a hybrid turf system relies on the retention backing providing the necessary support through the processes to guarantee the integrity of each turf roll. Further, depending on the choice of retention backing, it may be that the hybrid turf system of the invention can better accommodate standard turf management techniques, including solid or hollow-tine aeration and mechanical cleaning (column 11, 5-15). Lee et al., teach that said retention backing layer would typically be root permeable and free draining. These materials include both biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials as well as combinations of both biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials. With regard to claim 10, the biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials may be woven together into a single layer backing or the backing may comprise a layer of biodegradable material and a layer of non-biodegradable material. Examples of biodegradable retention backings are woven viscose, cotton, or jute/hessian (100 g/sqm-300 g/sqm), preferably viscose 240 g/sqm. (column 11, -20-35 and figure 8). With regard to claims 9 and 16, Lee et al., teach that the hybrid turf support layer (40)(net/mesh) and retention backing layer (41) (woven), can be made from natural organic fiber materials (column 7, 30-65 and column 11, 20-35). With regard to claim 14, specifically the size of the openings of the claimed second layer, the Examiner is of the position that the size and spacing of the openings are a function of the type of weave (plain, twill, satin etc.). However, since the woven retention backing layer (41) is intended to be positioned adjacent to the knitted supporting turf layer (40) and further intended to be root permeable and free draining the Examiner is of the position that the mesh/net openings of the woven retention backing layer (41) would also be square with a similar size and spacing of the net/mesh openings of the knitted supporting turf layer (40). (figure 8). The Examiner is further of the position that it is expected that the openings present in the woven retention backing layer and knitted hybrid support layer would intentionally overlap to allow natural vegetation (growth media) to pass through the layers. Such an embodiment is illustrated in figure 8 wherein it is shown that the natural vegetation (growth media) (43) passes through each of the woven retention backing layer and the knitted supporting hybrid turf layer. In other words, the Examiner is of the position that there would be “substantial” overlap with respect to the openings in each of the layers as claimed.
Lee et al., does not specifically teach forming the hybrid turf with the claimed PBSA.
The published KR reference teach an artificial turf structure comprising biodegradable materials. The published KR references specifically teach using the claimed PBSA. Specifically, the artificial turf pile and the back coating part may contain 30 to 50% by weight of butanediol, 45 to 65% by weight of succinic acid, 3 to 18% by weight of adipic acid, and a polybutylene succinate-co-adipate (PBSA) prepared by synthesizing 0.2 to 8% by weight of an additive (paragraph 0026). As such, with regard to the amount of PBSA set forth in claims 1, 4, 5 and 18 it appears from the KR disclosure that the artificial turf is primarily comprised (with the exception of the .2-8 wt. % additive) of the claimed PBSA and its constituents. The Examiner is of the position that absent evidence to the contrary the limitations of the amount of PBSA used in the artificial turf is met. Alternatively, in the event it is shown that the prior art combination does not disclose the claimed invention, including the claimed ranges of PBSA, with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because the prior art combination discloses the claimed constituents wherein each of the ranges substantially overlap with the claimed ranges. As such, based on the combined teachings it would be within a worker of ordinary skill in the art to form the hybrid turf of Lee et al., with the specific biodegradable PBSA of the published KR reference. The Examiner considers both references analogous since they are both concerned with forming artificial/hybrid turf structures and person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PBSA can be used as the biodegradable synthetic material. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
11. Claim(s) 6-8 /stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 11840809 B2 in view of KR101855284B1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Takahashi et al., US 7129190.
The rejections made over the combination of Lee et al., US 11840809 B2 in view of KR101855284B1 as applied to claim 1 above are maintained. Applicants have not presented any new arguments for which to consider.
The combination of Lee et al., and the published KR reference fail to teach the claimed PHB.
The patent issued to Takahashi et al., teach forming biodegradable synthetic filaments from combinations of PBSA and PHB (title, abstract and column 10, 20-column 12, 60). Takashashi et al., does not explicitly teach the claimed amount of each the PBSA and the PHB. Said fibers have excellent hydrolysis resistance (abstract). The Examiner is of the position that the property of hydrolysis resistance would be desirable in hybrid/artificial turf applications. Absent unexpected results the Examiner is of the position that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of each constituent based on desired hybrid turf properties. It has been held that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable that might be characterized as routine experimentation is not patentable. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, motivated by the desire to form biodegradable hybrid synthetic fibers having excellent hydrolysis resistance it would have been obvious to form the biodegradable synthetic filaments and turf of Lee et al., in view of the published KR reference with the biodegradable filaments made from combinations of PBSA and PHB as taught by Takahashi et al.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-272-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789