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 Election
Applicant elected without travers to prosecute the embodiment shown in figure 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aumonier (2021/0108376) in view of Foster (GB2495724)
As to claim 1, Aumonier disclose artificial turf having a substrate with intergrally formed and protruding individually molded fibers ([0010]). Aumonier does not specify adding additional technology to the system.
Foster teaches adding fiber optic to artificial turf fiber so that colored field marking and advertisement may be displayed on the field and control by CPU 4 (figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the fiber optic display technology of Foster to the system of Aumonier because it would allow of change markings between sports and allow for on field advertisements.
As to claim 2, Foster teaches that CPU 4 causes multiple colors and patterns to be displayed on the pitch thus CPU is an RGB controller
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aumonier (2021/0108376) and Foster (GB2495724) ass applied to claim 2 above, furth in view of Balisle (20090305823)
As to claim 6, Aumonier nor Foster specify the use of pressure sensors with their artificial turf system. Belisle teaches artificial turf blades with integral pressure sensors (Figure 1). This allows for data collection and more accurate officiating of sporting events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the pressure sensors of Balisle to the system of Aumonier and Foster because it would allow for more accurate officiating of sporting events.
As to claim 7, the pressure sensors of Balisle would inherently act in the claims manner.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aumonier (2021/0108376) in view of Balisle (20090305823)
As to claim 19, Aumonier disclose artificial turf having a substrate with integrally formed and protruding individually molded fibers ([0010]). Aumonier does not specify adding pressure sensors to the system.
Belisle teaches artificial turf blades with integral pressure sensors (Figure 1). This allows for data collection and more accurate officiating of sporting events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the pressure sensors of Balisle to the system of Aumonier because it would allow for more accurate officiating of sporting events.
As to claim 20, the pressure sensors of Balisle would inherently perform in the claimed manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-1915. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4 M-F.
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.
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.
/NATHAN J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421
