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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 9-14, 16-17, 19-22, and 26-28, in the reply filed on September 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 32 has been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
The term “pile density ratio” in claim 1 is interpretated as “the mass of the pile layer [g/m2] per unit of height [mm] of the pile layer” as discussed in para 0017 of the published application.
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 1-3, 5, 9-14, 16-17, 19-22, and 26-28 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the loops are closely packed together” and “substantially continuous playing surface”. “Closely” and “substantially” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. These terms are 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. For the purpose of prior art application and compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “closely packed together” and substantially continuous playing surface to be met if the pile density ratio is met.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the pile layer has one or more of: a pile density ratio of at least 150 g/m2 per mm, a pile height between 5 mm and 20 mm, and a mass of at least 800 g/m3.” The mass is given density units, which is not standard. Additionally, it is unclear if the list is alternative or inclusive based upon the combined use of “one or more…and..” For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 2 as in the alternative and the mass being indicative of density based on the claimed units.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein at least 70 wt% of the pile layer consists of uncut loops.” The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948). However, based on the at least 70% by weight, additional material may be present. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 14 as having the pile layer comprising at least 70 wt% of uncut loops.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the pile layer further comprises texturized yarns.” The term “further” implies an additional material. It is unclear the texturized yarn is in addition to and distinction from the pile fibres or the texturized yarns may be or comprise the pile fibres. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 19 as the pile layer comprising texturized yarn and open to the pile fibre being part of the texturized yarns.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the pile fibres have one or more of: a cross section with an aspect ratio (w/t) of not greater than 5, a width between 50 and 450 μm, a cross-sectional shape that is substantially circular, elliptical, oval, lenticular, diamond, or rectangular, a plurality of elongated ribs extending along the elongated direction of the pile fibres, and a linear density of between 500 and 2000 dtex.” It is unclear if the list is alternative or inclusive based upon the combined use of “one or more…and..” For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 22 as in the alternative.
Claim 26 recite the limitation “wherein the sports surface is for one or more of: field hockey, lawn bowls, cricket, golf, tennis and paddle.” It is unclear if the list is alternative or inclusive based upon the combined use of “one or more…and..” For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 26 as in the alternative.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-14, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DE 202011105370 to Reindl.
NOTE: The English Machine translation of DE 202011105370 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-3, 11-14, and 26-28, Reindl teaches a textile layer composition (surface) comprising a functional layer (backing layer) and a sliding layer (pile layer) that is a pile textile comprising a number of pile loops from 10 to 80 per cm2 (10,000 to 80,0000 per square meter) and a pile height from 2.0 to 20 mm and consists of fiber or multifilaments yarns, wherein the sliding layer and the functional layer are adhesively, needlepunched, meshed or sewn together (Reindl, abstract, p. 2-3, Fig. 1), reading on the pile layer comprising pile fibres, connected to the backing layer to form loops. Reindl teaches a specific embodiment having the sliding layer of pile fabric made of 100% polyester multifilament yarn with a basis weight of 480 g/m2, thickness of 2.6 mm, and 64 pole loops per cm2 (640,000 loops per square meter, claim 3) (Id., p. 3), reading on a pile layer having a pile density ratio of about 185 g/m2 per mm (claim 1-2), the loops being closely packed together to form a substantially continuous playing surface, as best understood by Examiner. Reindl teaches a specific embodiment that has a basis weight of 480 g/m2, thickness 2.6 mm with a pole heigh 2.1 mm (pile height), and 64 loops per cm2 (Id., p. 3), reading on a pile density ratio of about 229 g/m2 per mm (claim 1-2) and 64,000 loops per square meter (claim 3). Reindl teaches the use as sport surface (Id., p. 1-2).
Regarding the “sport surface for ball sports” preamble recited in claim 1, 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 In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Since the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, and since a sport surface for ball sports does not impute a specific structure absent from the prior art, the invention of Reindl appears to be capable of the claimed intended use recited.
Claims 11-12, Reindl teaches an adhesive film (locking layer) provided as surface connection of the sliding layer and the functional layer (Reindl, p. 3-4), reading on a locking layer provided at a lower surface of the backing layer for locking the pile fibers to the backing layer (claim 11) and the locking layer comprising a hot melt adhesive or a coating layer (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Reindl teaches the sliding surface comprising pile tufts (plurality of cut loops) (Reindl, abstract, p. 3, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Reindl does not require cut pile loops (Reindl, abstract, all, claim 1), and therefore reads on 100% of the pile layer consisting of uncut loops.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “wherein the sport surface is for one or more of: field hockey, lawn bowls, cricket, golf, tennis and paddle” is interpreted as a limitation with regards to the intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The textile composite of Reindl is capable of being used for field hockey, lawn bowls, cricket, golf, tennis or paddle.
Regarding claim 27, Reindl does not teach irrigation (Reindl, all claim 1), reading on the sport surface not being irrigated.
Regarding claim 28, Reindl teaches the functionally layer being made from polyester fiber (polymeric material) (Reindl, p. 3).
Claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2014/0272262 to Williams.
Regarding claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28, Williams teaches a floorcovering article (sport surface) comprising a spunbonded nonwoven polyester primary backing layer (backing layer) and a pile material comprising polyester pile yarn of face yarn (pile layer comprising pile fiber), and a first layer of polyester hot melt adhesive (Williams, abstract, para 0014-0017). Williams teaches the layer of polyester yarns (pile layer) being loop pile (claim 14or a combination of polyester loop and cut pile (claim 13) and being tufted through the primary backing to form loops (Id., Fig. 1, para 0015-0017, 0029-0031), reading on pile layer being connected to backing layer to form loops, specifically tufted into the backing layer (claim 20), and forming substantially continuous playing surface. Williams teaches the pile being low pile with height less than 0.25 inches with a high stitch density tufting construction, specifically a density greater than 6000 oz/yd3 made from high twist polyester yarn, such as 1465/2 denier with 6.5 twist that is heat set (Id., para 0030-0031, 0114) reading on the pile being closely packed together. Williams teaches a specific embodiment that has a pile density of 10,752 oz/yd3 and tufted pile height of 0.094” (Id., para 0031), which reads on a pile density ratio as defined in the instant application of about 398.7 gsm per mm (claims 1-2).
Regarding the “sport surface for ball sports” preamble recited in claim 1, 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 In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Since the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, and since a sport surface for ball sports does not impute a specific structure absent from the prior art, the invention of Williams appears to be capable of the claimed intended use recited.
Regarding claims 11-12, Williams teaches the adhesive layer (locking layer) securing the yarn tufts (pile fiber) to the primary backing (backing layer) and being a hot melt adhesive polymer (claim 12) (Williams, Fig. 1&2, para 0035-0037), reading on the covering further comprising a locking layer provided at a lower surface of the backing layer for locking the pile fibers to the backing layer.
Regarding claim 19, Williams teaches the face yarn comprising polyester fiber or filaments that may be exposed to texturing process (Williams, para 0055-0056), reading on the pile layer further comprises textured yarns.
Regarding claim 22, Williams teaches the pile being formed for yarn that are 1465/2 denier (1611.5/2 dtex) (Williams, para 0031), reading on the pile fibers having a linear density of between 500 and 200 dtex.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “wherein the sport surface is for one or more of: field hockey, lawn bowls, cricket, golf, tennis and paddle” is interpreted as a limitation with regards to the intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The floorcovering of Williams is capable of being used for field hockey, lawn bowls, cricket, golf, tennis or paddle.
Regarding claim 27, Williams does not teach irrigation (Williams, all claim 1), reading on the sport surface not being irrigated.
Regarding claim 28, Williams teaches a polyester primary backing layer (backing layer) (Ei, abstract, para 0015-0017), reading on the backing layer being made of a polymeric material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-14, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202011105370 to Reindl, as applied to claims 1-3, 11-14, and 26-28 above.
NOTE: The English Machine translation of DE 202011105370 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-3, 11-14, and 26-28, in the event it is shown that Reindl does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Reindl discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination.
Claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0272262 to Williams, as applied to claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28 above.
Regarding claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28, in the event it is shown that Williams does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Williams discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0272262 to Williams, as applied to claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28 above, in view of USPN 5,380,574 to Katoh.
Regarding claim 5, Williams teaches the texture appearance retention rating is dependent on tufting construction, yarn selection including denier, and color (Williams, para 0030). Williams teaches the fiber or yarn being any size including having denier ranging from about 0.1 denier per filament to about 2000 denier per filament (Id., para 0059). Williams teaches the low pile height being less than 0.25 inches (6.35 mm).
Williams silent with regards to the loops having an aspect ratio (H/W) ratio of less than 3.
However, Katoh teaches a mat comprising pile, including a loop pile (Katoh, abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 60- col. 2 lines 45). Katoh teaches a pile height of 4 to 10 mm and a pile wight 1 to 12 mm, preferably 3 to 8 mm, equating to the loops having an aspect ratio (H/W) ratio of 0.5 to 3.33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the pile, wherein the pile have a width of 3 to 8 mm as taught by Katoh, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known pile width predictably suitable for use in tufted material.
Claims 9-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0272262 to Williams, as applied to claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28 above, in view of USPN 4,705,706 to Avery.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 21, the backing necessarily has an upper surface and a lower surface and the pile fiber are shown passing through the backing layer (Williams, Fig. 1 &2, para 0015-0017, 0029-0031). Williams teaches the primary backing into which the pile yarn are tufted being adhered to a secondary backing by an adhesive applied in a molten state with temperature and pressure being applied (Id., Fig. 1, para 0015-0017, 0029-0043).).
Williams does not appear to explicitly teach the pile fiber at the lower surface of the backing layer being weakened (claim 9), specifically being partially melted (claim 10).
However, Avery teaches a tufted material wherein the back-loops of the stitched of the pile yarn tufted, including uncut pile, in the backing are partially melted in order to cause them to become thermally bonded to the backing (Avery, abstract, col. 3 lines 5-38), reading on the pile fiber at the lower surface of the backing layer being weakened (claim 9), specifically being partially melted. Avery teaches the stitches, or tufts, may be more upright and more and heavier stitched per unit surface possible resulting in more wearability (Id., col. 4 lines 46- col. 5 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the floorcovering of Williams, wherein the back loops of the pile are partially melted to the backing layer as taught by Avery, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known bonding methods predictably suitable for use in piled, or tufted, material and by the desire to have strong bonding, allow more upright piles, and a more and heavier stitching.
Regarding claim 21 and the claimed loop pull-out strength, although the prior art is silent with regards to the specific pull out strength , the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art teaches the pile being loops tufted into a polymer backing having been partially melted on the lower surface of the backing layer to bond with adhesive applied. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0272262 to Williams, as applied to claims 1-2, 11-14, 19-20, 22, and 26-28 above, in view of KR 2016/0103657 to Lee.
Regarding claim 16-17, Williams teaches the texture appearance retention rating is dependent on tufting construction, yarn selection including denier, and color (Williams, para 0030). Williams teaches the fiber or yarn being any size including having denier ranging from about 0.1 denier per filament to about 2000 denier per filament (Id., para 0059). Williams teaches the face yarn comprising polyester material and include slit film fiber or filaments that may be exposed to texturing process (Williams, para 0055-0056).
Williams does not explicitly teach the pile fiber being arranged in bundles comprising 3 to 30 monofilament, fibrillated tapes or slit tapes.
However, Lee teaches a pile material, such as an artificial tuft, used for a playground comprising a multifilament yarn composed of at least three monofilament for the pile yarn (Lee, abstract, p. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the floorcovering of Williams, wherein the multifilament comprises 3 monofilaments are taught by Lee, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known filament numbers predictably suitable for use in multifilament yarns used in pile surfaces. At a denier of 0.1 to 2000 per filament, the yarn would have a denier of 0.3 to 6000 denier (0.33 to 6,600 dtex) with three monofilament. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of between 2000 dtex and 20000 dtex, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the linear density, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2014/0134387 to Yamada teaches a mat comprising a pile yarn tufted into a backing, including uncut pile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789