DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 11-13 and 15-19) and Species I (claim 15) in the reply filed on January 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 2 and 7-8 are cancelled, claims 15-19 are new, and claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 14, and 16-18 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 11-13, 15, and 19 pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 lists “the” twice in a row in line 6 into line 7.
Claim 19 uses “wrap” instead of warp on line 2.
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.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 19 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.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 19 recite “high-permeability and durable artificial turf” in the preamble. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what level of permeability is considered “high-permeability” and what structure or properties are required to be considered “durable” within the scope of the claim. “High-permeability” is also used with respect to the base fabric in claims 11-13, 15, and 19 (see e.g., line 3 in claim 11) and is indefinite for the same reasons presented above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the mesh fabric" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 11-12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2005/0260380).
With respect to claims 11 and 15, Moon teaches primary carpet backings with good tuftability and tuft holding capabilities and tufted backings with improved tuft hold (paragraph [0001]). The tuftable fabric comprises fabric woven in a plain, closed weave from warp tapes comprising polypropylene resin and weft yarns, with an average warp count of about 18 to about 32 yarns per inch (709-1260 yarns/m) and a lower average weft count of about 10 to about 22 yarns per inch (394-866 yarns/m) (paragraph [0010]). The weft yarns may also be tapes (paragraph [0019]).
The warp tapes are preferably about 1.4 to about 2.0 mils thick (0.0356-0.0508 mm) (Yarn B) (paragraph [0021]). The warp tape widths vary with average counts and generally are such as to provide desired coverage (paragraph [0021]). Generally, the ratio of average tape width to average thickness is at least 10:1 (0.356-0.508 mm) and preferably from about 20:1 (0.712-1.02 mm) to about 200:1 (7.12-10.2 mm) (paragraph [0020]). The weft yarns are heavier and thicker than the warp tapes, having a thickness generally ranging from about 1.7 to about 2.5 mils (0.0432-0.0635 mm) (Yarn A) (paragraphs [0023]-[0024]). Widths of the weft tapes generally are selected within the range of about 80 to about 200 mils (2.03-5.08 mm), preferably about 100 to about 150 mils (2.54-3.81 mm) (paragraph [0025]).
Weft tape thickness may influence reduced surface smoothness of the backings and greater thickness of the weft tapes contribute to improved tuft hold in higher and lower weft count fabric designs (paragraph [0024]). Additionally, weft tapes with lower deniers yield fabrics with reduced tuft hole, while higher denier weft tapes can adversely affect fabric tuftability, both by increasing needle deflection and by promoting undesirable excess heat generation from friction (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the weft yarn (Yarn A) to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a tufted primary fabric that has the necessary tuft hold and desired surface smoothness without adversely affecting the tuftability of the primary backing. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
The primary carpet backing may be tufted with face yarn to provide a pile surface (paragraph [0011]). A binder may be applied to the backing to secure the face yarn stitches to the tufted backing as is well known in the art (paragraph [0043]).
The recitation "artificial turf" in claim 11 has not been given patentable weight because it is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. In the instant case, Moon teaches the structure a tufted fabric comprising a base fabric, yarns tufted into the base fabric, and a back adhesive as required by claim 11.
Moon teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the tufted fabric has high-permeability and is durable and the primary backing has high-permeability without hole punching. It is reasonable to presume that these properties are inherent to Moon. Support for said presumption is found in that as discussed above, Moon teaches all the claimed structure, particularly the specific dimensions of the warp and weft tapes as well as their respective weaving densities. Therefore, the tufted product and primary backing of Moon is expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 12, Moon teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above. Moon further teaches a binder may be applied to the tufted primary backing to secure the face yarn stitches (wherein said base fabric is a layer of said high-permeability base fabric) and/or a secondary backing may be used (paragraph [0043]). Secondary backings include nonwoven fabrics, woven or nonwoven scrims (mesh), or netlike nonwoven structures (mesh) (paragraph [0042]).
With respect to claim 19, Moon teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Moon further teaches the polypropylene resins of the warp and weft tapes may contain pigments (paragraph [0019]) and the tufted fabric may be dyed (paragraph [0044]).
The limitation “wherein the warp and/or the weft yarns are one or more of black, green, which, blue, violet, orange, yellow, and brown in colour” is an aesthetic design choice directed to matters relating to ornamentation only which has no mechanical function, and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I). Moon discloses that the primary backing can include pigments and/or be dyed, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the desired color based on the desired aesthetic appearance of the final product (see e.g., paragraph [0063] of Moon).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2005/0260380) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Patterson (US 4217383) and Potter (US 5219620).
With respect to claim 13, Moon teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above.
Moon is silent as to the binder including filler and a foaming agent in the proportions claimed, where the density of the glue after foaming is controlled to be 0.8-0.2 times the density of the glue before foaming.
Patterson teaches a primary backing for a tufted carpet which includes a layer of foam compound on the undersurface thereof (col. 1, lines 7-12). The foam compound may be a urethane material and includes other ingredients to help with lubrication (fillers) such as silicone compounds, glycols, and stearates, preferably diethylene glycol (col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 11). The glycol is added in a quantity ranging from 5 to about 15 parts by weight of the rubber or urethane compound and the stearates may be used alone or in combination with the glycol in the range of 5 to 15 parts by weight (10-30 parts by weight total filler materials) (col. 2, lines 12-17). The foam may be coated directly onto a woven flat strand polypropylene fabric with good adhesion (col. 2, lines 18-22).
The amount of filler range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 13. 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 Patterson, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Patterson further teaches that typically, the primary backing material is a woven flat stand polypropylene material tufted with tufting elements and coated with latex to anchor the yarn elements (col. 1, lines 13-28). The addition of the latex, however, results in extended drying of the carpet in ovens (col. 1, lines 13-28). An advantage of the foam backing is that it can be tufted after application, allowing for the use of elevated oven temperatures resulting in reduced drying rates (col. 2, lines 34-48; col. 3, lines 30-39).
Since both Moon and Patterson teach tufted woven flat tape polypropylene primary backing fabrics coated with a binder, 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 binder of Moon to be the foamed polyurethane comprising 10-30 parts by weight lubricant of Patterson in order to provide a tufted fabric dries quicker than conventional tufted products, resulting in reduced production time.
Moon in view of Patterson is silent as to the foamed polyurethane comprising 0.3-0.7 mass% of a foaming agent where the density of the polyurethane after foaming is controlled to be 0.8-0.2 times the density of the glue before foaming.
Potter teaches a process for foam treating pile fabrics, especially carpet (col. 1, lines 8-9). The foam compositions include foaming agents in order to improve the composition’s foaming potential (col. 4, lines 47-58). A minimum concentration of foaming agents corresponding to the “critical micelle concentration” should be added (col. 4, lines 59-68). Since the foaming agents remain in the finished carpet and, in most cases, reduce soil protection, the amount of foaming agent is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1% and is preferably about 0.5% (col. 4, lines 59-68). This amount of foaming agent provides the optimum balance of soil performance and foam properties (col. 4, lines 59-68).
Since both Moon in view of Patterson and Potter teach tufted products comprising foam, 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 foam of Moon in view of Patterson to include 0.1 to 1%, preferably 0.5%, of a foaming agent in order to improve the foaming potential and properties of the foam without compromising soil performance.
Moon in view of Patterson and Potter teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the density of the urethane after foaming is controlled to be 0.8-0.2 times the density of the urethane before foaming. It is reasonable to presume that the density change is inherent to Moon in view of Patterson and Potter. Support for said presumption is found in that as discussed above, Moon in view of Patterson and Potter includes a foaming agent in the urethane in the claimed range. It is known from the prior art that the foaming agent helps to control the foaming potential (Potter; col. 4, lines 47-68). Therefore, the ordinary artisan would expect the same material (urethane) using the same amount of foaming agent (0.5%) would result in a final density that fulfills the claimed relationship.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoda (JP 2003-166146)1 teaches a water-permeable artificial turf base fabric comprising a woven fabric in which warp threads made of synthetic resin flat yarns are woven with a weft thread flat yarn (paragraphs [0004]-[0007]).
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