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 October 18, 2024, November 18, 2025, March 30, 2026, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP H06235159).
Morita discloses artificial turf (abstract) comprising a base cloth (paragraph 4) having a polypropylene flat warp yarn and a reflex type polypropylene filament weft yarn (claim 3 of Morita). Morita discloses an artificial lawn is a tufted pile fabric prepared by tufting pile yarns having flat cross-section yarns such as tape yarns and split yarns on a primary backing fabric with an adhesive backing applied to the back of the fabric which uses a coarse net-like woven fabric having a large mesh gap where the coating film easily breaks as a primary base fabric, in order to make a broken water-permeable hole in the coating film of the adhesive applied to the backing (abstract), as in claim 1. In claim 1, the phrase, “formed by blowing air to the base cloth” introduces a process limitation to the product claim.
For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having artificial turf yarns on the surface of a base cloth. The reference suggests such a product because Morita discloses artificial turf (abstract) comprising a base cloth (paragraph 4) having a polypropylene flat warp yarn and a reflex type polypropylene filament yarn (claim 3 of Morita). Morita discloses an artificial lawn is a tufted pile fabric prepared by tufting pile yarns having flat cross-section yarns such as tape yarns and split yarns on a primary backing fabric with an adhesive backing applied to the back of the fabric which uses a coarse net-like woven fabric having a large mesh gap where the coating film easily breaks as a primary base fabric, in order to make a broken water-permeable hole in the coating film of the adhesive applied to the backing (abstract).
Concerning claim 2, Morita discloses a water-permeable hole in the coating film of the adhesive applied to the backing (abstract). In claim 2, the phrase, “formed by tufting the artificial turf yarns, one end of each said artificial turf yarn passes through a respective one of said pinholes to form a protrusion, wherein the protrusion is in contact with the bonding layer” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. Further, process limitations are given little patentable weight in product claims.
Concerning claim 3, Morita discloses artificial turf (abstract) comprising a base cloth (paragraph 4) having a polypropylene flat warp yarn and a reflex type polypropylene filament yarn (claim 3 of Morita).
Concerning claim 5, Figure 2 of Morita shows a cross section of the warp yarn is a flat structure, wherein the warp yarns are arranged in parallel and spacing between the warp yarns is equal, as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Concerning claim 7, Figure 2 of Morita shows the first yarns and the second yarns are interlaced in parallel and spacing between the first yarns and the second yarns is equal, as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Concerning claim 11, Morita discloses an artificial lawn is a tufted pile fabric prepared by tufting pile yarns having flat cross-section yarns such as tape yarns and split yarns on a primary backing fabric with an adhesive backing applied to the back of the fabric which uses a coarse net-like woven fabric having a large mesh gap where the coating film easily breaks as a primary base fabric, in order to make a broken water-permeable hole in the coating film of the adhesive applied to the backing (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the portions of the adhesive backing to partially penetrate into the permeable holes of the material to provide a durable artificial lawn material.
Concerning claim 12, Morita discloses an artificial lawn is a tufted pile fabric prepared by tufting pile yarns having flat cross-section yarns such as tape yarns and split yarns on a primary backing fabric with an adhesive backing applied to the back of the fabric which uses a coarse net-like woven fabric having a large mesh gap where the coating film easily breaks as a primary base fabric, in order to make a broken water-permeable hole in the coating film of the adhesive applied to the backing (abstract), as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 13, Morita discloses artificial turf (abstract) comprising a base cloth (paragraph 4) having a polypropylene flat warp yarn and a reflex type polypropylene filament yarn (claim 3 of Morita). Morita discloses an artificial lawn is a tufted pile fabric prepared by tufting pile yarns having flat cross-section yarns such as tape yarns and split yarns on a primary backing fabric with an adhesive backing applied to the back of the fabric which uses a coarse net-like woven fabric having a large mesh gap where the coating film easily breaks as a primary base fabric, in order to make a broken water-permeable hole in the coating film of the adhesive applied to the backing (abstract)
Concerning claim 14, Figure 1 shows one end of the artificial turf yarns passes through respective ones of said pinholes to form respective protrusions that are in contact with the bonding layer, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
253
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Concerning claim 15, Morita discloses an artificial lawn is a tufted pile fabric prepared by tufting pile yarns having flat cross-section yarns such as tape yarns and split yarns on a primary backing fabric with an adhesive backing applied to the back of the fabric which uses a coarse net-like woven fabric having a large mesh gap where the coating film easily breaks as a primary base fabric, in order to make a broken water-permeable hole in the coating film of the adhesive applied to the backing (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the portions of the adhesive backing to partially penetrate into the permeable holes of the material to provide a durable artificial lawn material.
Concerning claims 16-20, Morita discloses artificial turf (abstract) comprising a base cloth (paragraph 4) having a polypropylene flat warp yarn and a reflex type polypropylene filament weft yarn (claim 3 of Morita). Figure 1 shows warp yarns and weft yarns cross woven with each other, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
253
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Conclusion
4. 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
Prosecution Insights