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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1-14 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.
The term “substantially free” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially free” 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. It is unclear how much of crumb rubber infill and shock pads is allowed while still be considered “substantially free”. It is also unclear the intended scope of shock pads. The PIP tubber base layer is described as acting as a “shock layer” (see para 0014 of published application) and therefore would serve as a shock pad but is required and within the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation :wherein the synthetic turf is infilled with a plurality of sand particles and a plurality of cooling particles, which are spread at least partially uniform throughout the synthetic turf.” It is unclear the scope of “partially uniform.” Are the plurality of sand particles and the plurality of cooling particles referenced or just the plurality of cooling particles as being spread at least partially uniform throughout the synthetic turf.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the synthetic turf is infilled with less than 1% of rubber particles or crumb rubber”. The basis for the 1% has not be specified, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the percent is by weight, volume, area, or another basis. Is this also the limit for being considered “substantially free”?
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein the PIP rubber subsurface is not dispersed.” It is unclear what the PIP subsurface is not dispersed within. The originally field disclosure teaches “[i]n one embodiment, the PIP rubber subsurface comprises rubber buffing and a binder such that the PIP rubber subsurface is not dispersed” (see para 0016 of published application). This portion appears to refer to dispersed meaning free flowing but allows for rubber buffing to be mixed or dispersed within a binder. The claim further recites the limitation “wherein the PIP subsurface is … configured to deliver ASTM F1292 standards for impact attenuation for synthetic turf placed on a playing surface.” However, to pass this standard, the fall height is required. Additionally, the synthetic turf design and sublayers will also influence fall attenuation performance. It is unclear the structural requirement. As discussed in para 0095 of the published application “[t]he type of surface use determines the required PIP rubber subsurface thickness, and the PIP rubber subsurface thickness may be different for various uses. Depending on ASTM F1292 requirements for critical fall height (4′, 5′, 6′, 7′, 8′, 9′, 10′, 12′ or 13′ (1219, 1524, 1829, 2134, 2438, 2743, 3048, 3657 or 3962 mm), the PIP rubber subsurface thickness may be 1 ¼″, 2″, 2 ½″, 2 ½″, 3″, 3 ½″, 4″, 4 ½″, 5″ 6″ or more (32, 51, 63, 63, 76, 89, 102, 114, 127 152 mm, or more).” As the requirement are variable based on certain parameter that are not defined in the claim, it is unclear the structural requirement needed to meet the claim apart from the positively recited structure, i.e. the claimed mixture of rubber buffing and aromatic polyurethane binder is required.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “wherein the PIP rubber subsurface is poured with a mixture of rubber buffing and aromatic polyurethane binder compacted.” It is unclear if the PIP rubber subsurface is a separate material that is poured with a mixture of rubber buffing and aromatic polyurethane binder or if the PIP rubber subsurface is formed by pouring a mixture of rubber buffing and aromatic binder. For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 1 as encompassing the PIP formed from a mixture of rubber buffing and aromatic polyurethane binder.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the synthetic turf infill comprises at least 75 wt.% or more of sand by dry bulk weight in an amount from about 3 to about 10 pounds of sand per square foot of synthetic turf.” If is unclear if the infill is required to be from about 3 to about 10 pounds of sand per square foot or is recited for determining the percentage of sand by dry bulk weight.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the surfacing material substrate” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There has been no positively recited surfacing material. It is unclear what is being coated by the one or more superabsorbent polymers.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “[a] synthetic turf system further comprising…” However, as currently recited claim 11 is an independent claim. It is unclear what the “further” is referring to. The limitation “the PIP rubber subsurface” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on rejected claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2019/0203425 to Sawyer teaches an artificial turf system comprising a turf assembly having a turf backing that is water-porous (water-porous backing layer) and stands of artificial grass blades (synthetic turf having a plurality of synthetic turf strands) extending from the turf backing with an infill material placed between the blades having a composition of sand in an amount within the range of from about 80 to about 98% of the infill by dry bulk weight and organic particles (cooling particles) in an amount within the range of from about 2 to 20 % of the infill by dry bulk weight (synthetic turf is infilled with a plurality of sand particles and a plurality of cooling particles). US Pub. No. 2021/0285165 to Fisher teaches a poured-in-place protective surface that can be installed at a playground comprising a blend of rubber chunk component made up of granules of reclaimed rubber, rubber buffings and a binder and includes the installation of a cap layer comprising synthetic grass or turf component and teaches the protective surface having a desirable combination of thickness and head injury criterion as tested by ASTM F1292018. US Pub. No. 2012/0258811 to Tetrault teaches a synthetic turf having super absorbent materials in order to keep the synthetic turf cooler than conventional synthetic turfs (Tet, abstract). Tet teaches a synthetic turf system comprising a foundation, a plurality of grass-like filaments attached to a backing layer and teaches it is desirable to have super absorbent polymer (SAP) in the infill of synthetic turf to provide a source of water for evaporative cooling.
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
Prosecution Insights