Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/637,286

COCONUT HARD SHELL GRANULAR INFILL FOR SYNTHETIC SPORT FIELDS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 16, 2024
Examiner
FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Genus Industries LLC Dba Icoir Products Group
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
769 granted / 984 resolved
+13.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1010
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 984 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement 1. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 16, 2024, and April 30, 2025, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1) 2. 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. 3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amado (WO 2008115085). Amado discloses an artificial turf system having an infill material produced from a mixture including coconut shells and husk (abstract) where Amado discloses artificial turf systems are known to have a sheet substrate in which there extend vertical filaments or pile threads which simulate a natural greensward (background of Amado), as in claim 1. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1) 4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dennis et al. (CN 105682878). Dennis discloses artificial turf comprising coconut shell artificial turf infill (paragraph 95) where artificial turf comprises a grass-like fabric, the grass-like fabric having a backing and a plurality of vertical with shaped object of grass-like surface fibre (paragraph 3), as in claim 1. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 5. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amado (WO 2008115085) in view of Kim et al (KR 101791257). Amado discloses an artificial turf system having an infill material produced from a mixture including coconut shells and husk (abstract) where Amado discloses artificial turf systems are known to have a sheet substrate in which there extend vertical filaments or pile threads which simulate a natural greensward (background of Amado). Amado does not disclose a shock and drainage pad. Kim teaches an artificial turf system composed of a drainage board and shock absorbing pad, where Figure 1 of Kim shows the drainage pad under the turf surface, which comprises the infill material, as shown below: PNG media_image1.png 467 675 media_image1.png Greyscale . Amado and Kim are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is artificial turf system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the drainage board and shock absorbing pad, as taught in Kim, in the artificial turf system of Amado, as Kim shows it is known in the art for artificial turf systems to have drainage board and shock absorbing pad and to achieve the predictable result of improving the removal of excess water from the artificial turf, as in claim 2. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 7. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amado (WO 2008115085) in view of Wijers (CN 108368681 A). Amado discloses an artificial turf system having an infill material produced from a mixture including coconut shells and husk (abstract) where Amado discloses artificial turf systems are known to have a sheet substrate in which there extend vertical filaments or pile threads which simulate a natural greensward (background of Amado) Amado does not disclose a shock and drainage pad or geotextile fabric. Wijers teaches an artificial turf system with a turf layer (abstract) which comprises a shock absorption pad and a drainage layer comprising a geotextile fabric supporting layer (paragraph 13). Amado and Wijers are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is artificial turf system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the drainage layer, shock absorption pad and geotextile fabric, as taught in Wijers, in the artificial turf system of Amado, as Wijers shows it is known in the art for artificial turf systems to have drainage layers, shock absorption pad and geotextile fabric and to achieve the predictable result of improving the removal of excess water from the artificial turf, as in claim 3. Concerning claim 4, Figure 3 shows a compacted aggregate leveling course layer, as shown: PNG media_image2.png 648 407 media_image2.png Greyscale . Concerning claim 5, Figure 3 shows a layer of subbase material, as shown: PNG media_image2.png 648 407 media_image2.png Greyscale . Concerning claim 6, Figure 3 shows a layer of compacted subgrade material, as shown: PNG media_image2.png 648 407 media_image2.png Greyscale . Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 8. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amado (WO 2008115085). Amado discloses an artificial turf system having an infill material produced from a mixture including coconut shells and husk (abstract) where Amado discloses artificial turf systems are known to have a sheet substrate in which there extend vertical filaments or pile threads which simulate a natural greensward (background of Amado). Amado discloses the infill coconut material is crushed and grinded (page 4, last paragraph through page 5, first paragraph). Although Amado does not explicitly disclose the size of the crushed coconut shell material, size modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04, as in claims 7-8. Concerning claim 9, Amado discloses an artificial turf system having an infill material produced from a mixture including coconut shells and husk (abstract) where Amado discloses artificial turf systems are known to have a sheet substrate in which there extend vertical filaments or pile threads which simulate a natural greensward (background of Amado). Amado discloses the infill coconut material is crushed and grinded (page 4, last paragraph through page 5, first paragraph). Although Amado does not explicitly disclose smooth edges or no sharp corners of the infill material, the court held that the configuration of the claimed material is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Conclusion 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600884
LINERLESS FILM STACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601941
Screen Cover Plate, Display Apparatus, and Electronic Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600116
SPECIAL POLYMER LAYERS FOR FASTER LAMINABILITY OF MULTILAYER STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595547
TRANSPARENT CONDUCTIVE FILM AND USE OF SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598696
Component Carrier and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 984 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month