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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) over the anticipation of Mashburn (US 2019/0360160 A1) IDS 05/30/2024, the applicant has amended independent claim 1 to add the limitation of “wherein the particles have not been molten” and now submits that Mashburn does not describe or suggest an artificial turf comprising a material layer adhered to the second surface of the primary backing, wherein the material layer comprises particles composed of at least 75 wt. % of one or more polymers, and “wherein the particles have not been molten.” (amended portion).
Applicant argues that Mashburn clearly requires that the polymer particles on the primary backing and loopbacks must be made molten by heating to a temperature at or above the melting temperature of the polymer particles which causes the particles to melt and flow into a coating or discontinuous film. Moreover, Mashburn describes that colloidal thermosetting (SBR) particles permeate into the interstices of the primary backing and the loop back of the tufts and are fused in place, as stated by the Office. But these particles are not a part of a material layer of particles not molten adhered to a surface of the primary backing as required in the present claims (Applicant arguments/remarks 06/29/2026 pp. 5-6).
The examiner is providing new grounds of rejection as necessitated by this amendment.
Additionally, as to claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the applicant argues that while the Office alleges that one would have found it obvious to connect turfs of Mashburn with seams as defined by the secondary reference of Cochran, III (US 10,982,383), the applicant argues that the position that the seam strength of at least 70 N/100mm after aging is a result effective variable that one can simply select/adjust, the Office provides no evidence supporting its allegation and the applicant argues that seam strength can be affected by the seam formation method and/or backing materials and cannot simply be set as desired and that nothing in Mashburn or Cochran would have suggested the particular particle backing of the present claims having the recited high seam strength (Applicant arguments/remarks 06/29/2026 p. 7).
The examiner counter-argues that while it is true that seam strength can be affected by a number of factors, however, under broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 dependent on claim 1, as recited, there appears to the examiner to be no features/limitations that would indicate anything beyond what would motivate one with ordinary skill in the art to provide a seam strength of 70 N/100 mm after aging nor any features recited within the scope of claims 1 and/or 9 that would provide unexpected “high seam strength” results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 2019/0360160 A1) IDS 05/30/2024 in view of Bearden (US 2010/0129571 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mashburn discloses an artificial turf field comprising an artificial turf (ti, abs, paragraph [0001]) comprising a primary backing (Fig. 1 abs, paragraphs [0001] [0002] [0028] primary backing material – 42) comprising a nonwoven and/or a woven fabric (paragraph [0002] can be made from woven or nonwoven fabric) and having a first surface and a second surface (paragraph [0009] first primary surface, second primary surface), and artificial turf fibers connected to the primary backing, the artificial turf fibers extending from the first surface of the primary backing (wherein tufts extend outwardly from the first primary surface), and a material layer adhered to the second surface of the primary backing (paragraph [0009] wherein composition is applied to the loop backs and second primary surface of the tufted primary backing material), wherein the material layer comprises particles composed for at least 75 wt.% of one or more polymers (Tables 9 10 paragraphs [0080] [0082] [0083] the thermoplastic particles have a calculated particle size of 589 microns with less than 5% of the particles falling below 200 microns thus comprising 100% of the thermoplastic polymer (LDPE) whereby the colloidal thermosetting (SBR) particles of the aqueous polymer dispersion permeate into the interstices of the primary backing and the loop backs of the tufts and are fused in place).
However, Mashburn discloses that these particles which permeate into the interstices of the primary backing and the loop backs of the tufts and fuse in place, do so by melting (paragraph [0007] heating the polymer particles on the primary backing and loop backs to a temperature at or above the melting temperature of the polymer particles).
In the same field of endeavor, Bearden discloses a method for making artificial turf (abs) which has a primary backing comprising woven or nonwoven fabric (Fig. 2 paragraph [0025] backing – 20) with turf fibers extending from a first surface of the primary backing (Fig. 2 paragraph [0026] yarn backloops – 50 inserted into backing – 20) in a material layer adhered to the second surface of the primary backing and with particles that have not been molten (Figs 2, 6,7 paragraphs [0014] [0028] coating material deposited onto the backing in discrete particles to form a contiguous, yet porous network that partially cohere to each other ).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Mashburn with the teaching and suggestion of Bearden whereby an artificial turf field having a primary backing and artificial turf fibers connected to the primary backing extending from a the first surface of the primary backing and a material layer adhered to the second surface of the primary backing whereby the material layer comprises particles composed of at least 75 wt. % of one or more polymers, as disclosed by Mashburn, would include that these particles have not been molten, as taught by Bearden.
One with ordinary skill in the art would consider this feature advantageous because the presence of unmelted solid particles within the material layer provide a layer that is porous yet contiguous and that is rigid enough to achieve a desired tuft (fiber) bond (paragraphs [0014] [0032]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mashburn further discloses that the material layer comprises solid particles composed for at least 75 wt.% of one or more polymers (Table 9 paragraphs [0007] [0083] a plurality of solid polymer particles whereby in Example 5 a material layer comprises particles of LDPE comprising 100% with vinyl acetate ethylene as 25% and 75% by weight, respectively).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mashburn further discloses that the material layer comprises particles composed for at least 75 wt.% of one or more thermoplastic polymers (abs, paragraphs [0007] [0008] solid polymer particles are thermoplastic).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mashburn further discloses that the particles have an average size in the range of 100 µm to 1500 µm (Table 10 paragraph [0081]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mashburn further discloses that the particles are formed by transforming a waste artificial turf into the particles (paragraph [0069] polymers used for the thermoplastic polymer particles can be recycled polymers specifically from recycled artificial turf).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mashburn further discloses that the material layer comprises the particles in a matrix material (Table 9, paragraphs [0009] composition comprises an aqueous dispersion of colloidal thermoplastic polymer particles or thermoplastic polymer particles dispersed in the water, where vinyl acetate ethylene (VAE) latex is the matrix).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mashburn further discloses that each of the primary backing, the artificial turf fibers and the material layer is composed for at least 75 wt.% of one or more polyolefin polymers (Table 9 paragraphs (0028] [0035] [0041] [0080] where primary backing, artificial turf fibers and the material layer are composed of at least 75% wt. % of one or more polyolefin polymers as shown in Table 9 as example).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mashburn further discloses that the material layer comprising the particles has a thickness in the range of 1 mm to 9 mm (paragraph [0083] resulting layer is approximately 0.25 inches thick which is approximately equal to 6.35 mm).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mashburn (US 2019/0360160 A1) IDS 05/30/2024 and Bearden (US 2010/0129571 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cochran, III (US 10,982,383 B2), of record.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mashburn and Bearden disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that the field comprises at least two artificial turfs, which are connected to each other by one or more seams, wherein the seams have a seam strength of at least 70 N/100 mm after ageing.
In the same field of endeavor, Cochran discloses floor covering systems and methods of making and installing them (abs) including artificial turf fields (Fig. 1, Col. 23 ll. 50-56 where synthetic turf is synonymous with artificial turf – see Col. 3 l.48). Cochran further discloses that its synthetic turf field can be installed for at least artificial turfs which are connected to each other by one or more seams (Figs. 5C-5D Col. 1 ll. 35-41; Col. 28 ll. 5-9 29-40 exposable portion of the secondary backing material of the first floor covering can be overlapped with the exposable portion of the secondary backing material of the second floor covering to form an overlapped edge region using a seam welder).
But Cochran is silent as to the seams having a seam strength of at least 70 N/100 mm after ageing.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to connect at least two artificial turfs which are connected to each other by one or more seams with a seam strength of at least 70 N/100 mm after ageing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use this seaming methodology as taught by Cochran because the seaming would provide a continuous aesthetically-pleasing appearance and, additionally, at a seam strength of at least 70 N/100 mm after ageing because this would meet the criteria of providing a stronger seam and a substantially impermeable barrier (Col. 28 l. 64 - 20 ll. 1-18).
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 WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights