DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
3. Claims 1-7, 10-17 are pending. Claims 1-7, 10-12, 16-17 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1 is amended. Claims 8-9 are previously cancelled. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/06/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,134,687 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
5. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
6. Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-7, 10-12, 16-17 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 04/08/2026 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the booster of photocatalytic degradation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 11 is construed to recite “a booster of photocatalytic degradation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 3-7,10,16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Francois Gugumus (US Pub. No. 2004/0030009 A1, hereinafter “’009”) in view Romain Luijkx (US Pub. No. 2013/0273268 A1, hereinafter “’268”).
Regarding claims 1,16: ‘009 teaches a polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]) comprising at least one organic pigment (Page 1, [0009]), at least one sterically hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) (Page 1, [0010]) and as UV absorber a mixture (Page 1, [0011]) of a 2-hydroxyphenyl benzotriazole (M.W. 211.22), and a 2-hydroxyphenyl-s-triazine (M.W. 356.38) (Page 1, [0012]; Page 30, Claim 1), wherein the composition is the polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and is adapted for protecting the fiber against UV radiation (Page 26, [0385]). ‘009 teaches the amount of the HALS in the polyolefin to be stabilized is preferably 0.005 to 5%, in particular 0.01 to 1% or 0.05 to 1% by weight, based on the weight of the polyolefin (Page 22, [0313]), and the UV-absorbers are typically incorporated in an amount of 0.005 to 5% each by weight based on the polymer. The total amount of UV absorber is preferably from 0.01 to 5%, more preferably from 0.05 to 2% and most preferably from 0.05 to 1% by weight, based on the weight of the polyolefin. The weight ratio of hydroxyphenyl triazine UV-absorber to hydroxy-phenyl benzotriazole UV-absorber is preferably from 10:1 to 1:10, more preferably from 5:1 to 1:5 and most preferably from 2:1 to 1:2 (Page 9, [0137]; Page 32, Claims 6-7). ‘009 teaches a polyolefin composition contains additionally a further stabilizer selected from the group consisting of a phenolic antioxidant, phosphite or phosphonite and benzofuranone or indolinone (Page 25, [0355]). The components can be added to the polyolefin in the form of a powder, granules or a masterbatch, which contains these components in, for example, a concentration of from 2.5 to 25% by weight (Page 25, [0356], i.e., overlapping ranges). ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), further comprising a booster of photocatalytic degradation of the polymer material of the fiber, the booster being a metal salt or metal oxide (Page 27, [0408]-[0410]), Example 1), wherein the booster is TiO2 (Page 27, [0408]-[0410]), Example 1, Table 1). ‘009 does not expressly teach the first UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight smaller than 600 g/mol such as octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate (i.e., Irganox 1076, MW. of 531), and the second UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight higher than 800 g/mol such as pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- hydroxyphenyl) propionate) (i.e., Irganox 1010, MW. of 1178), wherein the fiber comprises the first antioxidant by at least 0.05% of the weight of the fiber and the second antioxidant by at least 0.01% of the weight of the fiber.
PNG
media_image1.png
255
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, ‘268 teaches artificial grass tufted from slit film or monofilaments (Page 1, [0002]) comprising antioxidants package including Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and Irganox 1076. ‘268 teaches the polyethylene for the slit film and monofilaments for the artificial grass may additionally contain usual additives well known to those skilled in the art such as antioxidants, stabilizers, processing aids, fillers, flame retardants, coloured pigments or similar. These additives may be present in quantities generally between 0.01 and 15 weight % based on the weight of the polyethylene (Page 5, [0075]), wherein these antioxidants are a highly efficient, non-discoloring, sterically hindered phenolic, primary antioxidant stabilizer that protects organic substrates against thermo-oxidative degradation (Page 5, [0075]; Page 6, [0101]) with benefit of providing a polyethylene that fulfills all of these requirements suitable to make artificial grass (also known as artificial turf). In particular, these requirements include longer durability, higher thermal stability (higher Vicat softening temperatures) and better ball roll (Page 1, [0018]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made since it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). It is submitted that it is common to add antioxidants to thermoplastics. Antioxidants inhibit the oxidation reaction by combining with free radicals or by reacting with hydroperoxides.
Regarding claims 3,17: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), wherein the HALS being a N-methyl-HALS, the HALS being in particular 1,6-hexane diamine, N,N'- bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-, polymers with morpholine-2,4,6- trichloro-1,3,5-triazine such as Cyasorb UV 3529® (Page 19, [0286]).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), further comprising an organophosphite antioxidant (Page 27, [0408]), Example 1).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), wherein the organophosphite antioxidant being tris(2,4- ditert-butylphenyl)phosphite (Page 27, [0408]), Example 1).
Regarding claim 6: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), wherein the artificial turf fiber comprising 0.05 parts of the organophosphite antioxidant of the fiber’s weight (Page 27, [0408]), Example 1). ‘009 teaches a polyolefin composition contains additionally a further stabilizer selected from the group consisting of a phenolic antioxidant, phosphite or phosphonite and benzofuranone or indolinone (Page 25, [0355]). The components can be added to the polyolefin in the form of a powder, granules or a masterbatch, which contains these components in, for example, a concentration of from 2.5 to 25% by weight (Page 25, [0356]).
Regarding claim 7: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]) comprising at least one organic pigment (Page 1, [0009]), at least one sterically hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) (Page 1, [0010]) , wherein the amount of the HALS in the polyolefin to be stabilized is preferably 0.005 to 5%, in particular 0.01 to 1% or 0.05 to 1% by weight, based on the weight of the polyolefin (Page 22, [0313]).
Regarding claim 10: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches an artificial turf comprising artificial turf fibers (Page 26, [0385]).
11. Claims 2, 11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Francois Gugumus (US Pub. No. 2004/0030009 A1, hereinafter “’009”) in view Romain Luijkx (US Pub. No. 2013/0273268 A1, hereinafter “’268”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Kim et al. (KR 101009390 B1, machine translation, already of the record, hereinafter “’390), and Frerichs et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/029 9056 A1, hereinafter “’056”).
Regarding claims 2: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 in view of ‘268 does not expressly teach the HALS being 1,3- propanediamine, N,N-1,2-ethanediylbis-, reaction products with cyclohexane and peroxidized N-butyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine- 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine reaction products.
However, ‘390 teaches the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf is formed
with the Waals (HALS) group flame retardant such as 2,4 (1-cyclohexyloxy -2,2,6,6- piperidine-4 -yl)butyl arnino ]-6- chloro- s- triazine (Page 4, [0016]; Page 9, [0037]), and octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate (Page 6, [0023]; Page 9, [0037]) with benefit of providing
the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability (Page 3, [0011]).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HALS by ‘009, so as to include the HALS being 1,3- propanediamine, N,N-1,2-ethanediylbis-, reaction products with cyclohexane and peroxidized N-butyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine- 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine reaction products, and wherein the first UV- absorbent substance being a sterically hindered phenolic antioxidant, in particular octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert.butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate as taught by ‘390, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability as suggested by ‘390 (Page 3, [0011]).
Regarding claim 11: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches the artificial turf comprising: first artificial turf fibers, wherein the first artificial turf fibers comprising the booster of photocatalytic degradation, the booster being in particular a metal salt or metal oxide, the booster of photocatalytic degradation being a first pigment having a white or bright color (Page 27, [0408]-[0410]), Example 1, Table 1). ‘009 teaches second artificial turf fibers and/or third artificial turf fibers, wherein the second artificial turf fibers are free of the first pigment and comprise at least 10% less of each of the substances than the at least one first fiber, wherein the third artificial turf fibers are free of the first pigment and are free of one or more or all of the substances (Page 28, [0411) Example 2). ‘390 teaches the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf comprising second artificial turf fibers and/or third artificial turf fibers, wherein the second artificial turf fibers are free of the first pigment and comprise at least 10% less of each of the substances than the at least one first fiber (Page12, [0067], Table 1). ‘009 in view of ‘268 does not expressly teach a booster of photocatalytic degradation includes at least 90% by weight the TiO₂ and about 6.0-7.5 % % by weight the Si and Al for providing a first pigment having a white or bright color in the polymer material, and
‘056 teaches nanoparticle titanium dioxide particles which are silica and alumina treated in the presence of citric acid (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the nanoparticle titanium dioxide particles includes at least 90% by weight the TiO₂ and about 6.0-7.5% by weight the Si and Al (Page 4, Example 1, Page 6, Table 1), wherein the silica and alumina treated titanium dioxide nanoparticles having the final particles in a size range less than pigmentary; typically the average particle size is less than about 100 nanometers (Page 2, [0028]) with benefit of providing to produce titanium dioxide nanoparticles which are passivated as indicated by a high photo stability and/or high chemical stability. In addition, the nanoparticles have a reduced tendency to form agglomerates (Page 1, [0015]). Furthermore, because of the reduced photo activity of the titanium dioxide particles, they can be beneficial in products which degrade upon exposure to UV light energy (Page 3, [0041]). Alternatively, USRN teaches the publicly available titanium Oxide Nanoparticles (TiO2, rutile) surface coated with silicon and aluminum (92 wt%; Al and Si 6-7.5 wt%) having an average size of 30 nm with benefit of providing better paint color, stronger resistance to ultraviolet light, super hydrophilic and easier to be dispersed (Pamphlet, lines 10-13).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polymer-based artificial fiber composition by ‘009, so as to include a booster being TiO2 rutile particles coated with Al and Si having an average size of 30 nm as taught by ‘056, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to produce titanium dioxide nanoparticles which are passivated as indicated by a high photo stability and/or high chemical stability. In addition, the nanoparticles have a reduced tendency to form agglomerates (Page 1, [0015]). Furthermore because of the reduced photo activity of the titanium dioxide particles, they can be beneficial in products which degrade upon exposure to UV light energy as suggested by ‘56 (Page 3, [0041]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since choosing the booster of photocatalytic degradation based on the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level ordinary skill in the art, and supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 in view of ‘268 does not expressly teach the artificial turf, further comprising rubber infill, the rubber comprising a plasticizer.
However, ‘390 teaches the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf comprising rubber infill (Page 8, [0032]; Page 14, [0071]), the rubber comprising a plasticizer (Page 5, [0018]; Page 5, [0021]) with benefit of providing the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability (Page 3, [0011]).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polymer0based artificial turf fiber by ‘009, so as to include the artificial turf, further comprising rubber infill, the rubber comprising a plasticizer as taught by ‘390, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability as suggested by ‘390 (Page 3, [0011]).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to Applicant’s argument that Gugumus does not disclose, teach or even suggest substances (of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber) adapted for protecting the fiber against UV radiation, the substances including "two sterically hindered phenolic antioxidants.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, it is submitted that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provides the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). In this case, nevertheless ‘009 in view of ‘268 teaches a polymer-based artificial turf fiber comprising substances adapted for protecting the fiber against UV radiation as the recited claimed. ‘009 teaches a polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0008]), which comprises a) at least one organic pigment (Page 1, [0009]), b) at least one sterically hindered amine light stabilizer (Page 1, [0010]), and c) as UV absorber (Page 1, [0011]), a mixture of a 2-hydroxyphenyl benzotriazole and a 2-hydroxyphenyl-s-triazine (Page 1, [0012]), wherein the composition is used for artificial grass, astroturf (Page 26, [0385]). ‘009 teaches the above mentioned further stabilizers and additives are usually applied in an amount from 0.01% to 2% (Page 25, [0354]). Also, the polyolefin composition contains additionally a further stabilizer selected from the group consisting of a phenolic antioxidant, a phosphite or phosphonite and benzofuranone or indolinone (Page 25, [0355]). The above mentioned components a, b, c and further additives can be incorporated into the polyolefin to be stabilized by known methods, wherein the components can be added to the polyolefin in the form of a powder, granules or a masterbatch, which contains these components in, for example, a concentration of from 2.5 to 25% by weight (Page 25, [0356]). ‘009 does not expressly teach the mixture of two sterically hindered phenolic antioxidants.
However, ‘268 teaches artificial grass tufted from slit film or monofilaments (Page 1, [0002]) comprising antioxidants package including Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and Irganox 1076. ‘268 teaches the polyethylene for the slit film and monofilaments for the artificial grass may additionally contain usual additives well known to those skilled in the art such as antioxidants, stabilizers, processing aids, fillers, flame retardants, coloured pigments or similar. These additives may be present in quantities generally between 0.01 and 15 weight % based on the weight of the polyethylene (Page 5, [0075]), wherein these antioxidants are a highly efficient, non-discoloring, sterically hindered phenolic, primary antioxidant stabilizer that protects organic substrates against thermo-oxidative degradation (Page 5, [0075]; Page 6, [0101]) with benefit of providing a polyethylene that fulfills all of these requirements suitable to make artificial grass (also known as artificial turf). In particular, these requirements include longer durability, higher thermal stability (higher Vicat softening temperatures) and better ball roll (Page 1, [0018]).
It is submitted that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made since it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had understood that it is common to add the mixture of antioxidants to thermoplastics. Antioxidants inhibit the oxidation reaction by combining with free radicals or by reacting with hydroperoxides. For instance, as further evidenced Yifan Zhang (CN104499073, machine translation, hereinafter “’073”) teaches an antibacterial luminous artificial lawn (Page 4/20, [0002]), wherein the antibacterial luminous artificial lawn comprises a buffering layer and a turf layer, wherein the fiber grass of the turf layer comprises the following raw materials in parts by weight (Page 5/20, [0010]): 65-85 parts of a carrier, (Page 5/20, [0011]), 18-33 parts of antibacterial luminous coloring master batch (Page 5/20, [0012]), 0.8-4 parts of an antioxidant (Page 6/20, [0013]), 1-7 parts of an ultraviolet light absorber (Page 6/20, [0014]), and 0.5-6 parts of silicone oil (Page 6/20, [0015]), wherein the antioxidant is a mixture of antioxidant 1010 and antioxidant 1076 (Page 9/20, [0048]) corresponding to the instant of first UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight smaller than 600 g/mol such as octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate (i.e., Irganox 1076, MW. of 531), and the instant of second UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight higher than 800 g/mol such as pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- hydroxyphenyl) propionate) (i.e., Irganox 1010, MW. of 1178) with benefit of providing the antibacterial luminous artificial lawn having the advantages of being high in strength, high in dispersibility, low in processing cost, and luminous in the night (Page 5/20, [0008]).
Additionally, it is well established that the obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
In response to Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reasonable expectation of success in replacing the two UV absorbers of Gugumus’009, i.e., 2-hydroxyphenyl-benzotriazole and 2-hydroxyphenyl-s-triazine, with two propionate-type sterically hindered phenolic antioxidants from Luijkx’268, i.e., Irganox 1010 and Irganox 1076, for substantially preventing the degradation of pigmented polyolefins.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘009 teaches the composition is used for artificial grass, astroturf (Page 26, [0385]). ‘009 teaches the above mentioned further stabilizers and additives are usually applied in an amount from 0.01% to 2% (Page 25, [0354]). Also, the polyolefin composition contains additionally a further stabilizer selected from the group consisting of a phenolic antioxidant, a phosphite or phosphonite and benzofuranone or indolinone (Page 25, [0355]). The above mentioned components a, b, c and further additives can be incorporated into the polyolefin to be stabilized by known methods, wherein the components can be added to the polyolefin in the form of a powder, granules or a masterbatch, which contains these components in, for example, a concentration of from 2.5 to 25% by weight (Page 25, [0356]). ‘268 teaches artificial grass tufted from slit film or monofilaments (Page 1, [0002]) comprising antioxidants package including Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and Irganox 1076.
It is noted that it is common to add the mixture of antioxidants to thermoplastics. Antioxidants inhibit the oxidation reaction by combining with free radicals or by reacting with hydroperoxides. For instance, as further evidenced Yifan Zhang (CN104499073, machine translation, hereinafter “’073”) teaches an antibacterial luminous artificial lawn (Page 4/20, [0002]), wherein the antibacterial luminous artificial lawn comprises a buffering layer and a turf layer, wherein the fiber grass of the turf layer comprises the following raw materials in parts by weight (Page 5/20, [0010]): 65-85 parts of a carrier, (Page 5/20, [0011]), 18-33 parts of antibacterial luminous coloring master batch (Page 5/20, [0012]), 0.8-4 parts of an antioxidant (Page 6/20, [0013]), 1-7 parts of an ultraviolet light absorber (Page 6/20, [0014]), and 0.5-6 parts of silicone oil (Page 6/20, [0015]), wherein the antioxidant is a mixture of antioxidant 1010 and antioxidant 1076 (Page 9/20, [0048]) with benefit of providing the antibacterial luminous artificial lawn having the advantages of being high in strength, high in dispersibility, low in processing cost, and luminous in the night (Page 5/20, [0008]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made since it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic such as substantially preventing the degradation of pigmented polyolefins not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 1975
In response to applicant's argument that Gugumus' broad ratio range of 10:1 to 1:10 is bidirectional and does not point in any particular concentration direction. Thus, Gugumus does not teach any molecular-weight-dependent preference.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In cases involving overlapping ranges, the predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness . . . . . . . . Selecting a narrow range from within a somewhat broader range disclosed in a prior art reference is no less obvious than identifying a range that simply overlaps a disclosed range. In fact, when as here, the claimed ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the conclusion is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap. [(Citations omitted.)] ‘009 teaches the composition is used for artificial grass, astroturf (Page 26, [0385]), wherein the composition further stabilizers and additives are usually applied in an amount from 0.01% to 2% (Page 25, [0354]). Also, the polyolefin composition contains additionally a further stabilizer selected from the group consisting of a phenolic antioxidant, a phosphite or phosphonite and benzofuranone or indolinone (Page 25, [0355]). The above mentioned components a, b, c and further additives can be incorporated into the polyolefin to be stabilized by known methods, wherein the components can be added to the polyolefin in the form of a powder, granules or a masterbatch, which contains these components in, for example, a concentration of from 2.5 to 25% by weight (Page 25, [0356]). ‘268 teaches artificial grass tufted from slit film or monofilaments (Page 1, [0002]) comprising antioxidants package including Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and Irganox 1076. It is submitted that it is common to add the mixture of antioxidants to thermoplastics. Antioxidants inhibit the oxidation reaction by combining with free radicals or by reacting with hydroperoxides. Thus, [D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable such as the hindered phenolic antioxidants in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
In response to applicant's argument that neither prior art document addresses the problem of ensuring long- term stability of artificial turf fibers with even hints to the claimed solution of combining two UV-protecting agents of significantly different molecular weight,
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that “Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 ( CCP A 1975). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). “[T]he burden of showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them.” Klosak, 455 F.2d at 1080. “[I]t is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 19995) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); see also In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642 (CCPA 1978) (“Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements in the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish unexpected results.”); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972) (“[M]ere conclusory statements in the specification . . . are entitled to little weight when the Patent Office questions the efficacy of those statements.”).
In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reasonable expectation of success in replacing the two UV absorbers of Gugumus, with two propionate-type sterically hindered phenolic antioxidants from Luijkx, i.e., Irganox 1010 and Irganox 1076, for substantially preventing the degradation of pigmented polyolefins.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. ‘009 teaches the composition is used for artificial grass, astroturf (Page 26, [0385]), wherein the composition further stabilizers and additives are usually applied in an amount from 0.01% to 2% (Page 25, [0354]). ‘268 teaches artificial grass tufted from slit film or monofilaments (Page 1, [0002]) comprising antioxidants package including Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and Irganox 1076. Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made since it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). For example, as further evidenced Yifan Zhang (CN104499073, machine translation, hereinafter “’073”) teaches an antibacterial luminous artificial lawn (Page 4/20, [0002]), wherein the antibacterial luminous artificial lawn comprises a buffering layer and a turf layer, wherein the fiber grass of the turf layer comprises the following raw materials in parts by weight (Page 5/20, [0010]): 65-85 parts of a carrier, (Page 5/20, [0011]), 18-33 parts of antibacterial luminous coloring master batch (Page 5/20, [0012]), 0.8-4 parts of an antioxidant (Page 6/20, [0013]), 1-7 parts of an ultraviolet light absorber (Page 6/20, [0014]), and 0.5-6 parts of silicone oil (Page 6/20, [0015]), wherein the antioxidant is a mixture of antioxidant 1010 and antioxidant 1076 (Page 9/20, [0048]) corresponding to the instant of first UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight smaller than 600 g/mol such as octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate (i.e., Irganox 1076, MW. of 531), and the instant of second UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight higher than 800 g/mol such as pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- hydroxyphenyl) propionate) (i.e., Irganox 1010, MW. of 1178) with benefit of providing the antibacterial luminous artificial lawn having the advantages of being high in strength, high in dispersibility, low in processing cost, and luminous in the night (Page 5/20, [0008]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success by combining the composition of ‘009 and the mixture of antioxidant 1010 and antioxidant 1076 by ‘268.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the present application explains that artificial turf fibers have a small diameter and a high surface-to-mass ratio and that light-stabilizing substances may leave the fiber material, particularly in the presence of plasticizers from rubber infill. The present application further explains that the use of UV-protective substances having significantly different molecular weights provides long-term protection because the higher molecular weight component is comparatively less mobile, whereas the lower molecular weight component can migrate from inner regions of the polymer material toward the surface and thereby replenish UV- protective substances lost by migration or degradation (
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument lacks persuasive merit at least because the claims do not include language that requires artificial turf fibers to have a small diameter and a high surface-to-mass ratio and that light-stabilizing substances may leave the fiber material, particularly in the presence of plasticizers from rubber infill. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]pplicant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”),
Turning to Applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results, Examiner agrees that Applicant’s proffered evidence of the mixture of two hindered phenolic antioxidants in the specification, is insufficient to establish unexpected results for claim 1. Whether an invention has produced unexpected results is a question of fact. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[T]here is no hard and-fast rule for determining whether evidence of unexpected results is sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." Kao Corp. v. 7 Appeal 2017-004282 Application 13/877,156 Unilever US., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir.1990) ("[e]ach situation must be considered on its own facts."). However, a party asserting unexpected results as evidence of nonobviousness has the burden of proving that the results are unexpected. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Such burden requires Applicant to proffer factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought by claim 1, In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972). "[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference." In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). The extent of the showing relied upon by Applicant also must reasonably support the entire scope of the claims at issue. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., a polymer-based artificial turf fiber) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. It is submitted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
14. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
08/20/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights