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 May 12, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 9, and 11-19 are amended, claims 2 and 7-8 are cancelled, claims 15-19 are new, and claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 14, and 16-18 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 11-13, 15, and 19 pending for examination.
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 Yoda (JP 2003-166146)1,2 in view of Moon (US 2005/0260380)3.
With respect to claims 11-12 and 15, Yoda teaches an artificial turf which has stable water permeability and thread removal strength by using a base fabric of a specific configuration with synthetic resin flat yarns as the warp (paragraph [0003]). The warp thread is a flat yarn made of synthetic resin with a width A (mm) and the weft thread is also a flat yarn made of synthetic resin (paragraph [0007]). The width A of the warp thread flat yarn is preferably 1.0 to 10 mm, more preferably 1.2 to 5 mm (paragraph [0008]). The woven fabric preferably has a warp density of 15 to 30 threads/25 mm (600-1200 threads/m) and a weft density of 10 to 20 threads/25 mm (400-800 threads/m) (paragraph [0014]). The pile yarns are tufted into the base fabric and the back of the resulting pile fabric is coated with latex (paragraphs [0002], [0010]-[0011]).
Yoda further teaches that in order to achieve a water-permeable artificial turf base fabric the warp and weft threads are arranged at specific intervals in order to form gaps (paragraph [0004]; Fig. 1). The level of water permeability can be easily adjusted by setting the number of warp threads (paragraph [0005]) and controlling the gap width (paragraph [0011]). There is no need to add a perforation process to impart water permeability (paragraph [0016]).
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 number of warp threads and gap width in order to provide the desired water permeability, including the claimed range, for the artificial turf to ensure the surface dries quickly (see e.g., paragraph [0002]).
Yoda is silent as to the warp and/or weft yarn comprising a yarn A with a thickness of 0.08-0.5 mm, a yarn B with a thickness of 0.03-0.06 mm, and weft yarns with a width of 0.5-4 mm.
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 (paragraph [0010]). The weft yarns may also be tapes (paragraph [0019]).
The warp tapes (Yarn B) are preferably about 1.4 to about 2.0 mils thick (0.0356-0.0508 mm) (paragraph [0021]). The weft yarns (Yarn A) 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) (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]). Warp tapes that are too thick provide undesirable stiffness and weight however low denier tapes are flimsy with poor strength for tufting and poor tuft hold (paragraph [0021]). The weft tapes are preferably thicker than the warp tapes to improve tuft hold and pattern definition (paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
Since both Yoda and Moon teach tufted woven fabrics comprising a base fabric of tapes of different sizes, 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 warp tapes (Yarn B) of Yoda to have a thickness of 0.0356-0.0508 mm in order to provide a fabric that is not unnecessarily stiff and heavy, but provides the necessary tuft and tufting strength. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weft yarns to have a thickness of 2.54-3.81 mm in order to improve tuft hold and provide pattern definition.
Moon further teaches that 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) of Yoda 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).
With respect to claim 19, Yoda in view of Moon teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above. Yoda further teaches the synthetic resin of the tapes may include additives such as pigments (paragraph [0015]).
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). Yoda discloses that synthetic resin of the tapes can include pigments, 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 Yoda (JP 2003-166146)4,5 in view of Moon (US 2005/0260380)6 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Patterson (US 4217383)3 and Potter (US 5219620)3.
With respect to claim 13, Yoda in view of Moon teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above.
Yoda in view of 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 Yoda in view of 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 latex of Yoda in view 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.
Yoda in view of Moon and 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 Yoda in view of Moon and 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.
Yoda in view of Moon, 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 Yoda in view of Moon, Patterson, and Potter. Support for said presumption is found in that as discussed above, Yoda in view of Moon, 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.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to the claims due to informalities is overcome by Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims in the response received on May 12, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 11-13, 15, and 19 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 May 12, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
The rejections of:
claim(s) 11-12, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2005/0260380) and
claim(s) 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2005/0260380) further in view of Patterson (US 4217383) and Potter (US 5219620)
have been overcome by the amendments to the claims in the response filed May 12, 2026.
Applicants arguments with respect to Moon not teaching the newly added amendment “wherein the high-permeability artificial turf has a water permeability of 15000 mm/h or more” have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The remainder of the arguments presented in the response filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10 of the response Applicant submits that Moon is not analogous art to the claimed invention because it solves a different technical problem.
These arguments are not persuasive. As acknowledged by Applicant, in order to be analogous art to the claimed invention the reference must be (1) from the same field of endeavor (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP 2141.01(a). With respect to (1), Applicant argues on page 9 of the response that the carpet backing fabric of Moon is made by using warp tapes having certain deniers and weft yarns having certain deniers, and solves the technical problem of “improving tuftability and tuft holding capabilities”. The response concludes that the technical field of Moon and the technical field of the present application are not the same fields.
It is respectfully submitted that the analysis above is relevant to (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, not (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as alleged. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) states that when determining whether the “relevant field of endeavor” test is met, the examiner should consider “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention”. Additionally, MPEP 2141.01(a)(II) states that similarities and differences in structure and function of the inventions disclosed in the references carry great weight. In the instant case, as described above and previously, Moon teaches pile yarns tufted into a base fabric comprising warp and weft tapes of different sizes within the claimed ranges, as well as warp and weft densities within the claimed ranges (see e.g., paragraphs [0020]-[0025] of Moon). Since Moon teaches the structure of the claimed invention it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and thus is analogous art to the claimed invention, regardless of whether the problem it solves is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
On page 10 of the response Applicant submits that Patterson and Potter are also non-analogous art to the claimed invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above and previously, Patterson is directed to a pile fabric comprising a backing material made of woven flat strands (see e.g., col. 1, lines 13-28 of Patterson), similar to the claimed invention. Therefore, Patterson is of the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and thus is analogous art to the claimed invention. Similarly, Potter is directed to foam treated pile fabrics (see e.g., col. 1, lines 8-9), similar to the claimed invention. Therefore, Potter is of the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and thus is analogous art to the claimed invention.
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 cited as relevant prior art
3 Previously presented
4 Machine translation used as reference
5 Previously cited as relevant prior art
6 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights