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
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wallace (US 2014/0044485 A1).
Wallace discloses a system for managing and mitigating erosion in sand features on golf courses, the system comprising:
CLAIM 1 one or more reservoirs (278, 304, 412) configured to contain a sand stabilization compound and water;
one or more mixers (293, 296, 306) configured to mix the sand stabilization compound with the water in the one or more reservoirs (278, 304) to create a mixed solution; and
a distribution subsystem (410) connected to one or more of the reservoirs (Fig. 6), wherein the distribution subsystem is configured to spray (via tine injectors 420) the mixed solution onto the sand features of the golf course;
CLAIM 5 wherein the one or more reservoirs (278, 304) are configured to contain a sand stabilization compound that comprises one or more polysaccharides;
CLAIM 6 wherein the one or more reservoirs (278, 304) are configured to contain a sand stabilization compound that comprises one or more polysaccharides, which comprise one or more algae-derived phycocolloids;
CLAIM 7 wherein the one or more reservoirs (278, 304) are configured to contain a sand stabilization compound that comprises one or more polysaccharides, which comprise one or more plant-derived gums;
CLAIM 8 wherein the one or more mixers (293, 296, 306) are further configured to mix the sand stabilization compound and water with sand to create a mixture that can be sprayed onto the sand features to form a top playable layer1;
CLAIM 9 wherein the one or more mixers (293, 296, 306) are further configured to mix the sand stabilization compound and water with a slow-release algaecide2; and
CLAIM 10 wherein the one or more mixers are further configured to mix the sand stabilization compound with one or more optical brighteners.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIM 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 2014/0044485 A1) in view of Horten (US 1,603,110 A).
CLAIM 2 Wallace fails to teach a subterranean network of interconnected pipes.
Horten shows a subterranean network of interconnected pipes (h, q) connected to a reservoir (claim 1, “supply means”) and a plurality of sprayer nozzles (p. 1, ll. 93-7) connected to the pipes, wherein the pipes are configured to transport a mixed solution to one or more of the sand features. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Wallace with the addition of a subterranean network, as suggested by Horten. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate distribution of the mixed solution across an area of land.
CLAIM 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 2014/0044485 A1)
CLAIM 3 The system of Wallace further comprises one or more vehicles (410) configured to traverse the golf course terrain, wherein the one or more reservoirs (412) are mounted on the one or more vehicles, and wherein the distribution subsystem comprises one or more sprayer nozzles (420) connected to the one or more reservoirs.
Wallace fails to teach one or more mixers mounted on the vehicles (410). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have also mounted mixers (293, 296, 306) on the vehicles. The motivation would have been to inhibit separation of the mixed solution during transfer, and to have done with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 2014/0044485 A1) in view of Wirz (US 5,335,853 A).
CLAIM 4 Wallace fails to teach a portable unit.
Wirz discloses a portable unit that is configured to be carried by a single human, wherein one or more reservoirs (12) and a mixer (col. 2, ll. 4-12) are contained within the portable unit, and wherein a hose (83) and sprayer nozzle (84) are connected to the one or more reservoirs. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Wallace with the addition of a portable unit, as suggested by Wirz. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate the treatment or areas accessible only by foot, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIMS 11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 2014/0044485 A1) in view of Carus et al. (EP 3612145 B1).
CLAIM 11 All of the limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the system disclosed by Wallace, with the following exception.
Wallace fails to teach specifically a stabilization solution sprayed onto the sand features of a golf course.
Carus et al. (“Carus”) discloses a stabilization solution sprayed onto a golf course ([0007]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of use inherent to Wallace such that it would have been used to spray a stabilization solution onto the sand features of a golf course, as suggested by Carus. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate the preparation and the distribution of a stabilizing solution on a golf course, with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 13 The system of Wallace further comprises one or more vehicles (410) configured to traverse the golf course terrain, wherein the one or more reservoirs (412) are mounted on the one or more vehicles, and wherein the distribution subsystem comprises one or more sprayer nozzles (420) connected to the one or more reservoirs.
Wallace fails to teach one or more mixers mounted on the vehicles (410). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have also mounted mixers (293, 296, 306) on the vehicles. The motivation would have been to inhibit separation of the mixed solution during transfer, and to have done with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 15 In the combination of Wallace and Carus, the sand stabilization compound includes one or more polysaccharides (Carus, [0012]).
CLAIM 16 In the combination of Wallace and Carus, wherein the one or more polysaccharides include one or more algae-derived phycocolloids (Carus, cl. 3).
CLAIM 17 In the combination of Wallace and Carus, the one or more polysaccharides include one or more plant-derived gums (Carus, [0066]).
CLAIM 18 In the combination of Wallace and Carus, Wallace teaches the use of sand (gypsum).
CLAIM 19 Neither Wallace nor Carus teaches a slow-release algaecide. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art method with the addition of a slow-release algaecide to the one or more reservoirs for mixing with the sand stabilization compound, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the same. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for preventing the growth of algae within the distribution subsystem.
CLAIM 20 Neither Wallace nor Carus teaches fails to teach optical brighteners. It would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art method with the addition of optical brighteners to the one or more reservoirs for mixing with the sand stabilization compound, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the same. The motivation for making the modification would have been to form a highly visible coating.
CLAIM 12 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 2014/0044485 A1) in view of Carus et al. (EP 3612145 B1) as applied to CLAIM 11 above, and further in view of Horten (US 1,603,110 A).
CLAIM 12 Wallace i/v/o Carus fails to teach a subterranean network of interconnected pipes.
Horten shows a subterranean network of interconnected pipes (h, q) connected to a reservoir (claim 1, “supply means”) and a plurality of sprayer nozzles (p. 1, ll. 93-7) connected to the pipes, wherein the pipes are configured to transport a mixed solution to one or more of the sand features. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art method with the addition and use of a subterranean network, as suggested by Horten. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate distribution of the mixed solution across an area of land.
CLAIM 14 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 2014/0044485 A1) in view of Carus et al. (EP 3612145 B1) as applied to CLAIM 11 above, and further in view of Wirz (US 5,335,853 A).
CLAIM 14 Wallace i/v/o Carus fails to teach a portable unit.
Wirz discloses a portable unit that is configured to be carried by a single human, wherein one or more reservoirs (12) and a mixer (col. 2, ll. 4-12) are contained within the portable unit, and wherein a hose (83) and sprayer nozzle (84) are connected to the one or more reservoirs. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art method with the addition and use of a portable unit, as suggested by Wirz. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate the treatment or areas accessible only by foot, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
01 June 2026
1 The scope of the claimed invention is exclusive of the sand stabilization compound, water, and sand. Thus, Wallace is not required to teach sand.
2 Similar to CLAIM 8, Wallace is not required to teach a slow-release algaecide.
Prosecution Insights