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 § 112
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.
Claim 10 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 describes the “first boundary line comprises at least one spine that is continuous with neighboring first uninterrupted undulations, wherein the at least one spine is positioned on the outer half of the middle portion of the fiber, and wherein an amplitude of the spine is larger than amplitudes of the neighboring first uninterrupted undulations”. It is not clear what the claim recitation is describing. The specification describes in one embodiment, a spine is defined as a protrusion that is slightly larger in amplitude than neighboring protrusions and in other embodiments, as a protrusion that is slightly larger in amplitude that all other protrusions on both the first and second boundary lines of the cross-sectional shape of the middle portion 1202. It is not clear what the at least on spine is describing in claim 10. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to have different size undulations that result in different spines per the definition in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR10-1989-0003997).
The current claims recites: An extruded artificial turf fiber comprising:
first and second end portions;
and a middle portion having a curved cross-sectional shape,
wherein the curved cross-sectional shape is defined by a first boundary line and a second boundary line opposite the first boundary line,
wherein the first boundary line consists of first uninterrupted undulations and the second boundary consists of second uninterrupted undulations, and
wherein either:
a width of the curved cross-sectional shape as measured between the first and second boundary lines is constant along a length of the curved cross- sectional shape,
or the first uninterrupted undulations have a phase offset from the second uninterrupted undulations and/or the first and second uninterrupted undulations have different, equal or modulated spatial frequencies.
Kim is directed to spinneret for artificial turf used to manufacture artificial turf with excellent flexural elastic recovery rate and moisture retention rate. Kim teaches the spinneret is formed with an outer periphery (1) and an inner periphery (2) formed in an arc shape at regular intervals. The outer periphery is continuously repeated with triangles of the same size and the inner periphery is continuously repeated with curved parts of the same size.
The arc shape is the curved cross-section shape and the outer periphery (1) is the first boundary line and the inner periphery (2) is the second boundary line. Fig. 7 shows the cross-sectional shape of the monofilament wherein there are first uninterrupted undulations and second uninterrupted undulations.
Kim shows in Fig. 7 the first uninterrupted undulations are offset from the second uninterrupted undulations.
PNG
media_image1.png
118
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Kim shows in Fig. 6, the width between the peripheries (boundaries) are different wherein the undulation in the center is wider than the undulation on the end portions.
As to claim 7, Kim shows in Fig. 7 that the curved portion is an arc of a circle.
Claims 5, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR10-1989-0003997) in view of Auguste et al (DE202011103403).
As to claims 5 and 6, Kim does not explicitly teach third uninterrupted undulations. Kim does not teach different shapes at the end points.
Auguste is directed to synthetic fiber of the monofilament type for use in an artificial turf, in particular an artificial sports turf, which has a curved cross-section, the synthetic fiber having a ratio of central axis arc length to maximum thickness of less than 8. Auguste teaches the cross-sectional shape has a circular segment-shaped cross-section, and in yet another embodiment, the synthetic fiber has a convex side that is curved and a side formed by a straight line. A synthetic fiber according to one aspect of the invention may be provided with a convex side and on the other side with a line lying somewhere between a straight line and a pronounced concave line (page 3, top lines). Auguste teaches a range of shaped fibers as shown in Figs. 1-11. Fig. 2, 3, 11 have different shaped undulations at the end of the fiber than in the middle.
Auguste teaches the wavy pattern around the peripheral surface provide an increased stiffness, because the waves have stiffness enhancing effect. A gentle transition of the surface contour with a multiwave pattern and the wavy pattern shows increased stiffness without increase risk of breakage (page 4 middle paragraph). Auguste teaches increasing the size dimensions of the waveforms results in increased stiffness (page 5, top paragraph). The wavy pattern can be a sine pattern. The advantage of a sine wave pattern is that it has an even smoother wave transition between the antinodes of the pattern. Therefore, the fiber can withstand an even higher load without loss of rigidity and without an increased risk of splitting / breaking. The wave pattern can be crescent shaped pattern. If the surface of the fiber is provided with a crescent-shaped pattern, more of the surface of the fiber is embossed, i. H. sunk. Most of the light that strikes the surface of the fiber strikes the fiber at embossed locations. These light rays are reflected, but not back toward the light source; they are reflected to another position within the embossed sickle shape. In this way, the light rays are scattered, resulting in a shadow throwing effect, which gives the fiber a more natural appearance due to the reduced gloss. The wavy pattern can have antinodes on the convex site or the concave side and some of the waves can have waves of different dimensions. As the dimensions of the waveforms change, the properties of the fiber can be changed. By combining different sizes, protrusions, dimensions or the like, one can achieve a combination of effects. For example, large and small waves may be alternately arranged, thereby combining different effects such as rigidity, light scattering effect, fiber completeness, and the like (page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the waveform sizes and shaped motivated to optimize the stiffness and properties of the fiber.
As to claim 8, Kim shows in Fig. 7 there is a first boundary line and a second boundary line. Based on Fig. 7, it is not clear that the first and second undulations would incorporate the shape of a circle.
Auguste shows in Fig. 4, 7 and 9 waveforms would incorporate first and second circles in the wave shapes. Auguste teaches different dimension provide for different properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the waveform sizes and shaped motivated to optimize the stiffness and properties of the fiber.
As to claim 9, Kim does not teach the center portion has a thickening section.
Auguste shows in the figures 1-11 that some of the embodiments have thicker middle sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the waveform sizes and shaped motivated to optimize the stiffness and properties of the fiber.
As to claim 10, Kim teaches the embodiment in Fig. 7. Kim shows in Fig. 7 the protrusions or wave portions are of equal size.
Auguste teaches the wave portions can be of different sizes and therefore there are more than one spines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the waveform sizes and shaped motivated to optimize the stiffness and properties of the fiber.
Claims 2, 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR10-1989-0003997) in view of Olde et al (US 20110262665).
As to claims 2 and 4, Kim differs and does not teach the ends are thicker that the middle portion.
Olde teaches a artificial grass fiber wherein the curved shaped fiber has a thickened part at the ends makes the fiber more sliding friendly, so that player in the field sustain fewer injuries as shown in Fig. 1 [0016. With regard to claim 4, the widths of the first and second end portions are wider than the center sections in order to make the fiber more sliding friendly.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the ends thicker so that there is more sliding to reduce injuries on the turf.
As to claim 15, Kim is silent with respect to a carrier layer.
Olde teaches a carrier layer or backing layer where the bundles of synthetic fibers are attached to the backing [0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the artificial grass filaments to a backing carrier motivated to secure the filaments for artificial turf applications.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR10-1989-0003997) in view of Sick et al (EP3228737).
As to claims 11-14, Kim differs and does not teach a first and second polymer and first and second dyes respectively.
Sick is directed to artificial turf with marbled monofilament (Title). The invention provides for a method of manufacturing artificial turf (1000), the method comprising the steps of: - creating (100) a liquid polymer mixture (100, 400, 500), wherein the polymer mixture is at least a two-phase system, a first one (402) of the phases comprising a first polymer and a first dye, a second one (404) of the phases of the polymer mixture comprising a second polymer and a second dye, the second dye having a different color than the first dye, the second polymer being of the same or of a different type as the first polymer, the first and the second phase being immiscible, the first phase forming polymer beads within the second phase; - extruding (102) the polymer mixture into a monofilament (606) comprising a marbled pattern of the first and second color; - quenching (104) the monofilament; - reheating (106) the monofilament; - stretching (108) the reheated monofilament to deform the polymer beads into threadlike regions (800) and to form the monofilament into an artificial turf fiber (1004); - incorporating (110) the artificial turf fiber into an artificial turf backing (1002).
A compatibilizer is added to the polymer [0023].
The first polymer is can be a PET, PBT, polyamide [0026]. The second polymer can be polyethylene or polypropylene [0027].
As to claims 11-14, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a two phase polymer system with two different dyes motivated to produce a marbled artificial turf.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 9 and in combination with claims 1-8, 10 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 18 and 19 of copending Application No. 18468115 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant invention and the reference application are directed to an artificial turf that has the shape with curved cross-sectional shape and a first and second boundary portions and a thickening in the middle of the fiber. Claims 1-7 and 10 and 15 are obvious over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 18 and 19 of the reference application. Claim 8 is obvious over claim 4 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Auguste US 10793973.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights