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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10-11, 13, 19, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sick et al (US 2020/0248412).
As to claim 1, Sick et al discloses a natural turf reinforcement system, comprising: a fiber yarn 310 having at least one biodegradation characteristic; and a natural grass component 312, wherein the fiber yarn is injected into a soil bed and provides support to the natural grass component, and wherein the at least one biodegradation characteristic includes a full or substantially full biodegradation in the soil bed after injection after a defined time period. Sick et al also discloses (see para [0070] that the fiber yarn may be injected into a soil bed.
As to claim 2, Sick et al discloses wherein the full or substantially full biodegradation is triggered by an addition of a chemical or biological compound (i.e. decomposition booster).
As to claim 3, Sick et al discloses wherein the fiber yarn 310 comprises at least one of plant- based fibers, animal-based fibers, or at least one synthetic fiber having a defined time period of biodegradation.
As to claim 4, Sick et al discloses (see para [0027]) wherein the plant-based fibers comprise linen, hemp, sisal, coconut coir, pineapple fiber, palm fiber, cotton, jute, bamboo, bagasse, abaca, kapok, kenaf, or arenga.
As to claim 6, Sick et al discloses wherein the at least one synthetic fiber is selected from the group consisting of poly(butyrate adipate terephthalate) (PBAT), poly(succinates) PXS, poly(glycolates), poly(glycolate-lactate) copolymers (PGA, PLGA), poly(glutamates), or polypeptides. Sick et al discloses PLA (see para [0024-0026]).
As to claim 10, Sick et al discloses a fiber yarn 310 having at least one biodegradation characteristic for reinforcement of a natural grass component 312 in a hybrid turf, comprising at least one of a plant-based fiber (see para [0027] and [0089]), an animal-based fiber, or at least one synthetic fiber having at least one chemical treatment or coating that includes a natural wax.
As to claim 11, Sick et al discloses (see para [0027] and [0089]) wherein the plant-based fiber comprises linen, hemp, sisal, coconut coir, pineapple fiber, palm fiber, cotton, jute, bamboo, bagasse, abaca, kapok, kenaf, or arenga.
As to claim 13, Sick et al discloses wherein the at least one synthetic fiber is selected from the group consisting of poly(butyrate adipate terephthalate) (PBAT), poly(lactic acid) (PLA), poly(hydroxy alkanoates) (PHA), poly(succinates) PXS, poly(glycolates), poly(glycolate-lactate) copolymers (PGA, PLGA), polyamides, poly(glutamates), polypeptides, or polysaccharides.
As to claim 19, Sick et al discloses a method of reinforcing a hybrid turf system, comprising: fabricating a fiber yarn 310 from at least one of a plant-based fiber, an animal-based fiber, or at least one synthetic fiber; tuning the fiber yarn in accordance with at least one biodegradation characteristic determined by at least one chemical treatment or coating, the at least one biodegradation characteristic including a defined time period of biodegradation; and injecting the tuned fiber yarn into a soil bed, wherein the at least one biodegradation characteristic includes a full or substantially full biodegradation in soil after application after a defined time period, and wherein the at least one chemical treatment or coating is configured to extend or modify at least one property of at least one of the fiber yarn or the natural grass component. Sick et al also discloses (see para [0070] that the fiber yarn may be injected into a soil bed.
As to claim 22, Sick et al disclose the use of plant fibers as such wood dust or paper is considered a plant fiber.
As to claim 25, Sick et al discloses (see para [0040-0041] wherein the fiber yarn includes enzymes incorporated in a yarn formulation of the at least one synthetic fiber.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al (US 2020/0248412) in view of George et al (US 8,986,808).
As to claim 7, Sick et al discloses all that is claimed except wherein the fiber yarn includes at least one chemical treatment or coating configured to extend or modify at least one property of at least one of the fiber yarn or the natural grass component, and wherein the at least one chemical treatment or coating includes beeswax, carnauba wax, absorbent agar hydrogel, hydroxyethyl cellulose, poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate), plant hormones, plant nutrients, or mycorrhizae. George discloses a coating such as shellac (see col. 4, line 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coating such as shellac as disclosed by Geoge et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of improving synthetic turf.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al (US 2020/0248412).
As to claims 8 and 20, Sick et al discloses (see para [0092]) the hybrid turf may be installed at a use site, landscapes and non-sport facilities, but does not explicitly discloses wherein the soil bed is a dike. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a soil bed of a dike, since doing so would provide greenery to a dike location.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sick et al (US 2020/0248412) in view of Sutherland et al (US 2015/0033626).
As to claims 5 and 12, Sick et al discloses all that is claimed except wherein the animal-based fibers comprise alpaca wool, angora wool, bison wool, sheep wool, or silk. Sutherland et al discloses a fiber yarn comprising wool or silk (see para [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use animal based fibers such as wool or silk as disclosed by Sutherland et al, since doing so provides the expected benefit of reinforcing and adding stability to a turf surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
Claims 21, 23, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 21, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the fiber yarn comprises a polymer composite containing particles of calcium carbonate, and the at least one chemical treatment or coating includes citric acid that increases porosity of the fiber yarn.
As to claim 23, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the fiber yarn is impregnated with a hydrogel comprising at least one of agar, hydroxyethyl cellulose, or poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate), wherein the hydrogel causes a shape-memory effect when the fiber yarn is soaked with water.
As to claim 24, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the fiber yarn includes thermoplastic starch, and the at least one chemical treatment or coating includes Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron that degrades the thermoplastic starch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sick et al does not disclose injecting the fiber yarn into the soil bed. Sick et al discloses (see para [0070)] that the fiber yarn may also be injected into the soil bed. Furthermore, the biodegradation would then be in the soil bed.
As to claim 10, applicant argues that Sick et al does not disclose fibers having a chemical treatment or coating that includes a natural wax. Claim 10 broadly recites “having at least one biodegradation characteristic for reinforcement of a natural grass component in a hybrid turf, comprising at least one of a plant-based fiber, an animal-based fiber, or at least one synthetic fiber having at least one chemical treatment or coating that includes a natural wax.” (emphasis added) Sick et al discloses that the hybrid turf may comprise a plant based fiber (see para [0027] and [0089]).
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 FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights