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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III, claims 18–20 in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed subject matter is directed to a single, integrated inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because as explained in the restriction, the claimed apparatus may be used to practice a materially different process, the claimed process may be used to make a materially different product, and the product can be made by a materially different apparatus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1–17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation of a first spine width that is less than 125%, and the claim also recites a first spine width in particular 115% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 29–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auguste (US 2013/0004683 A1).
Auguste discloses the formation of synthetic fibers for use in artificial lawns, wherein the fibers have a curved cross-section with first and second end portions connected via a curved middle portion, wherein the width of the fiber increases from the end portions towards the center of the middle portion. Auguste abstract, ¶¶ 30, 50–52, Figs. 2 and 3. The fibers have first and second spines proximate to the first and second end portions, respectively. Id.
Claim 21 is rejected as the first and second spines are positioned in the middle portion on first and second arcs, respectively, by first and second angles of less than equal to 60 degrees. See id. Fig. 2. Claim 22 is rejected as the first and second fiber end portions have thickenings. See id. Fig. 4. Claim 27 is rejected as the center of the middle portion comprises a thickening that forms a bulge on both sides of the fiber. See id. Fig. 2. Claims 29–31 are rejected as the curved middle portion of the Auguste fiber has two opposing longitudinal contours comprising of undulations, wherein the contours comprising a first boundary line that is an outer, convex boundary line and a second boundary line that is an inner, concave boundary line to form an arc segment of a circle or ellipse. Id. As shown in the figures, a radius of curvature of the middle portion decreases from a center of the middle portion towards the end portions. Id. Claim 22 is rejected as the fiber may be made from polyethylene. Id. ¶ 47.
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.
Claim(s) 23–26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auguste.
The spines used in the artificial lawn fibers of Auguste provide enhanced stiffness to strengthen the fibers along with resilience, but can also lead to splitting of the fibers. Auguste ¶¶ 13–17, 19–21, 42. Thinner width sections offer more flexibility. Id. ¶ 17. Accordingly, the width of the first and second spines relative to the average width of the fiber or their neighboring protrusions is a result-effective variable affecting the strength and stiffness of the fibers. Consequently, absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed width percentage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
The ends of the artificial lawn fibers are preferably round to decrease the risk of injuries, and increasing thickness of the fiber leads to enhanced stiffness and resilience. Accordingly, claims 25 and 26 are rejected as it would have been obvious to have made the width of the first and second end portions larger than the average and maximum widths of the middle sections motivated by the desire to enhance the strength and durability of the fiber. Claim 28 is rejected as it would have been obvious to have had a central bulge that is 10–20% thicker than a maximum thickness of other portions of the middle portion motivated by the desire strengthen the fiber.
Claim(s) 20 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auguste as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Emge (US 2012/0114942 A1).
Auguste fails to teach that the artificial lawn fibers are integrated into a carrier and protrude therefrom to form artificial turf.
Embe teaches the formation of filaments for use in an artificial grass field, wherein a plurality of filaments are functionally connected to a backing member such that they protrude therefrom. Embe abstract, ¶¶ 45–48, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have connected the artificial lawn fibers of Auguste through a backing member such that the fibers protrude through the member to create an artificial lawn for use in sports such as field hockey. See Auguste ¶2.
Claim(s) 34–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auguste as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Sick (US 2019/0177882 A1).
Auguste fails to teach that the artificial lawn fiber is made of a polymer mixture that is at least a two-phase polymer mixture comprising a nucleating agent and/or a compatibilizer, wherein the first phase forms polymer beads within the second phase.
Sick teaches
“a method of manufacturing artificial turf creating a liquid polymer mixture, wherein the polymer mixture is at least a two-phase system. A first one of the phases includes a first polymer and a first dye, and a second one of the phases of the polymer mixture includes a second polymer and a second dye. The second dye has 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 are immiscible, the first phase forming polymer beads within the second phase. The method further includes extruding the polymer mixture into a monofilament including a marbled pattern of the first and second color; quenching the monofilament; reheating the monofilament; stretching the reheated monofilament to deform the polymer beads into threadlike regions and to form the monofilament into an artificial turf fiber; and incorporating the artificial turf fiber into an artificial turf backing.”
Sick abstract.
The first polymer may be polyamide, while the second polymer may be polyethylene. Id. ¶¶ 43–44. The artificial turf of Sick may further comprise a compatibilizer. Id. ¶ 31.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used the polymer mixture when making the artificial lawn fibers of Auguste motivated by the desire to create a fiber that better resembles natural grass. See id. ¶ 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights