DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
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(s) 1, 11, 12, 15-16, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grossman (US 2020/0121816 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grossman discloses a method of controlling one or more pathogens comprising delivering an effective amount of ozone and one or more pathogen reducing compound(s) (see para [0047] - hydrogen peroxide, triclosan, hypochlorite, etc.) by spraying onto artificial turf (see para [0071]-[0073], [0094] - ozone solution is sprayed directly onto the artificial turf to reduce pathogens).
Regarding claim 11, Grossman discloses wherein the pathogen reducing compounds are delivered by spraying after an initial treatment with the ozone (see para [0089] – ozone solution is first applied to the artificial turf and then a subsequent residual antimicrobial coating is then applied to reduce or eliminate pathogens).
Regarding claim 12, Grossman discloses that ozonated water is mixed with pathogen reducing compounds using a spray nizzle configured to combine flow from two separate streams (see para [0079] – spray nozzle connected to two tanks for mixing the chemicals being applied to the turf).
Regarding claim 15, Grossman discloses that method further comprises delivering one or more oxidizing agents such as oxygen (see para [0017]).
Regarding claim 16, Grossman discloses wherein the pathogen is a bacteria, virus or fungi (see para [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Grossman discloses that the artificial turf is sprayed at least once (see para [0089]).
Regarding claims 20-21 and 23, Grossman discloses measuring the number of pathogens (including fungi and bacteria – see para [0042]) after treatment in a sample of turf and if the number of pathogens is above a threshold level, a second treatment is applied to the turf (see para [0109]-[0113]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 3184329 (English translation).
Grossman is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and teaches spraying aqueous ozone onto grass/turf using a nozzle but does not appear to disclose a retractable spray lance.
JP 3184329 discloses (see English translation) a method of disinfecting lawns by spraying aqueous ozone onto the lawn using a portable sprayer having a spray gun (5) (retractable lance) attached to a hose (4) that is connected to a mobile carrier (6) which has a solution container (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Grossman and use a retractable lance such as the hose/sprayer configuration of JP 3184329 to manually dispense the ozone solution to the lawn by providing an easily movable dispensing device.
6. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwata (JP H0558827 – English translation).
Grossman is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and teaches ozone and pathogen reducing compounds but does not appear to disclose them being delivered at a rate of between about 0.001 ppm to about 50 ppm.
Iwata discloses preventing lawn disease by applying a solution of ozone to the grass, wherein the solution has a concentration of 0.5-2ppm (see para [0006]-[0007] of the translation). This concentration is sufficient to disinfect the turf (para [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Grossman and make the ozone solution such that it has a concentration of 0.5-2.0 ppm in order to disinfect the grass/turf as disclosed Iwata.
7. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP3560902 B2 (English translation).
Grossman is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and teaches an ozone generator but does not appear to disclose the exact type of ozone generator.
JP3560902 B2 teaches a process of disinfecting plants and soil using an ozone solution that is generated by electrolysis (see para [0011] and [0014] of the English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Grossman and use an ozone generator that generates ozone by electrolysis as taught by JP3560902 B2 in order to yield the predictable result of generating an ozone solution to sterilize the grass.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 2 is 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: regarding claim 2, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment “wherein the pathogen reducing compound(s) are flavonoids and optionally wherein the flavonoids are sprayed onto a grassed or hybrid pitch surface”.
9. Claims 4-7 and 9 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: regarding claim 4, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, wherein the pathogen reducing compound(s) provide a nano-coating to the pitch surface.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 9 are allowable for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 4, by virtue of claim dependency.
10. Claim 22 is 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: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, wherein the number of nematodes is determined, and the threshold level is a nematode damage index (NDI) of about 10.
11. Claim 24 is 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: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, wherein the ozone and one or more pathogen reducing compound(s) are applied in an amount effective to achieve a ratio of fungi to bacteria of about 0.5 to about 1.5.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. 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).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights