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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-7 and 15, drawn to an infill material and a synthetic turf surface.
Group II, claim(s) 8-14, drawn to a production process of an infill material.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of infill material comprising a plurality of particles, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lee (KR 101363360 B1, attached), as applied to claim 1 below.
During a telephone conversation with Roger Browdy on 4/21/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-7 and 15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification discloses the following on page 13, lines 11-14: “Exemplarily the biocidal agent is a trimethoxysilyl-chloride, for example having CAS number: 19911-50-70.”
It appears that this CAS number is intended to be CAS number 199111-50-70, for 3-(trihydroxysilyl)propyl dimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride, which is the likely active ingredient for 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl-dimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride in aqueous media (as evidenced by WO 99/03866, see page 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the limitation “95%of.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 begins with the limitation “Synthetic turf surface.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are 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 2 recites the limitation “highly irregular shape.” The term “highly irregular” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly irregular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed fibers have been rendered indefinite by this term.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the other two dimensions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein said particles are fibres having highly irregular shape and a dimension at least ten times greater than at least one of the other two dimensions, wherein an average length of the fibres is greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 4 mm, and wherein an average thickness of the fibres is greater than or equal to 5 μm and less than or equal to 60μm.” As calculated by the examiner, the claimed average length is always at least about 17 times greater than the claimed average thickness. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim is limited by the limitation “fibers having….a dimension at least ten times greater than at least one of the other two dimensions.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “preferably said further infill particles are dried olive pits having size between 0.5mm-2.5mm.” The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a weight content in said mixture of said particles” in line 5 of the claim. It is unclear if the claimed weight content refers to the weight content of said particles in the mixture.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 101363360 B1, see attachment), with evidence from Lo (“Lignin recovery from rice straw biorefinery solid waste by soda process with ethylene glycol as co-solvent,” attached).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an eco-friendly functional filler for artificial turf formed by extruding and injecting a mixture of 40 to 60 wt% of a biodegradable polymer, 20 to 30 wt% of red clay powder which is a mineral filler, 15 to 30 wt% of crushed straws (a reinforcing filler made of a plant material, as claimed), and 0.01 to 5 wt% of stabilizer which is addition agent (Abstract and [0049]). The biodegradable polymer is formed by blending at least one of a natural polymer having starch, chitin, or cellulous, synthetic polymers having polycaprolactone (PCL), polylactic acid (PLA), aliphatic polyester, or polyglycolic acid (PGA), and microbial polymers having polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) or poly-3-hydroxy-butyrate (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, as applied above, Lee teaches 15 to 30 wt% of crushed rice straw (Abstract and [0049]). As evidenced by Lo, rice straw contains 32~47% cellulose, 19~27% hemicellulose and 5~26% lignin (see the 2nd para. of the Introduction). As calculated by the examiner, the particles would therefore comprise about 0.75 to about 7.8 wt% lignin.
Regarding claim 4, as applied above, Lee teaches 40 to 60 wt% of the biodegradable polymer.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2018/0179711 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches infill that comprises synthetic composite particles containing a thermoplastic polymer and cellulosic fibers, in which thermoplastic polymer is a matrix that binds together the other components of each synthetic particle into a composite particle (Abstract). The thermoplastic polymer matrix, the first component of the composite infill material, may comprise any virgin or recycled, common or engineering thermoplastic polymer, including for example one or more of the following: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), acrylonitrile (AN), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), nylon 6, nylon 66, polycarbonate (PC), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polyimide (PI), polyphenylene oxide (PPO), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polysulfone (PSO), polyethersulfone (PES), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), starch-based polymers, polylactic acid (PLA) plastics, poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (PHB), polyamide 11 (PA 11), bio-derived polyethylene, and mixtures of these polymers ([0017]). The cellulosic fiber or cellulosic particle material include, for example, fibers, particles, or flakes from one or more of the following: softwood (e.g., southern pine), hardwood (e.g., maple, cypress, cedar, or oak), bamboo, rattan, rice straw, wheat straw, rice husk, bagasse, cotton stalk, jute, hemp, flax, kenaf, milkweed, banana trees, walnut shells, pecan shells, other tree nut shells, peanut shells, coconut shells, and any of the many other sources of cellulosic fibers and particles known in the art ([0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches that, in one embodiment, the particles comprise two different shapes—particles that are approximately spherical (70% to 95% by mass); and longer particles with a narrower shape (5% to 30% by mass) ([0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wu (US 2018/0179711 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Wu remains as applied above to claim 1. Wu further teaches that the cellulosic material can comprise from 10% to 80% of the composition as a whole ([0018]). The thermoplastic polymer matrix can comprise from 10% to 90% of the composition as a whole ([0017]).
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)). It is the position of the Office that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2018/0179711 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Neuhoff (EP 3272939 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wu remains as applied above.
Wu further teaches it is preferred that the density of the synthetic composite particles should be greater than 1.0 gram/cm3, to minimize any tendency for the infill particles to float away when the turf gets wet, for example during a storm or during cleaning with water ([0014]).
Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein said particles are fibres having highly irregular shape and a dimension at least ten times greater than at least one of the other two dimensions, wherein an average length of the fibres is greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 4 mm, and wherein an average thickness of the fibres is greater than or equal to 5 μm and less than or equal to 60μm.
However, Neuhoff teaches artificial turf infill that comprises irregularly shaped grains (116), wherein the grains comprise an agglomerate comprising at least one type of non-elastomeric thermoplastic (Abstract). At least a portion of the grains have fibrous extensions (302) (Abstract). In another embodiment, the irregularly shaped grains have a longitudinally stretched out and curved volume expansion with ratios of length to diameter/cross-section within 1:2 to 1:50 ([0022]). In another embodiment, the irregularly shaped grains have a sieve size between 0.2 mm and 12 mm ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the composite particles of Wu with an irregular shape having fibrous extensions, wherein the particles have a sieve size between 0.2 mm and 12 mm and a ratio of length to cross-section within a range of 1:2 to 1:50, in order to obtain infill particles that can interlock with each other and reduce a splash effect when a ball hits an artificial turf surface, as suggested by Neuhoff ([0022]-[0023]). The examiner notes that the smaller dimension of the particles would therefore reasonably overlap with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 5 μm and less than or equal to 60 μm (e.g., 1 mm/25 = 40 μm).
Regarding claim 15, Neuhoff teaches that artificial turf infill made from irregularly shaped grains is referred to as "polymer agglomerate.” The examiner notes that in Examples 1-5, Neuhoff teaches a polymer agglomerate weight of 5 kg/m2, where all weights refer to the amount of material distributed on the surface of an artificial turf carpet ([0077]). In the 5 examples, the numerical values may be varied by up to 10%, 20, or 30% to produce alternative examples ([0078]).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR101483464B1, see attachment) in view of Smollett (US 2021/0254290 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a filling chip for artificial turf including a chain extender 0.1-5 weight%; a plasticizer 10-30 weight%; a polylactic acid 10-40 weight%; an inorganic filler 35-70 weight%; a crystallization prevention agent selected from the acrylate-based resin 3-10 weight%, and as necessary, an anti-hydrolysis agent 0.05-2 weight%, and a manufacturing method thereof (Abstract and [0071]-[0072]).
Park does not explicitly disclose a reinforcing filler being made of a plant material.
However, Smollett teaches using olive pit particles as a portion of the infill for an artificial turf field (Abstract). In some embodiments, the infill may comprise extruded composite (e.g., thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), thermoplastic rubbers, mineral composite, or a combination thereof), cork, rubber (e.g., Styrene-butadiene rubber or SBR, or Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer rubber or EPDM rubber), other organic materials, or a combination thereof ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included olive pit particles in the filling chip of Park because Smollett teaches that infill material and compositions comprising olive pit particles have improved heat reduction capability compared to other organic infills and compositions ([0034]-[0035]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR101483464B1, see attachment) in view of Smollett (US 2021/0254290 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Grossman (US 2020/0121816 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Smollett remains as applied above, teaching olive pits and polylactic acid (PLA).
Park further teaches that an environment-friendly biodegradable plasticizer is vegetable oil ([0067]). The epoxidized vegetable oil may be possible, for example, epoxidized soybean oil ([0067] and [0069]). Park also teaches that examples of functional additives include antioxidants, heat stabilizers, UV stabilizers, antistatic agents, slip agents, etc. ([0100]).
Park in view of Smollett does not explicitly disclose wherein said particles comprise a biocidal agent selected in the group: organic silanes, chlore-based biocidal agents, zinc-based biocidal agents, or combinations thereof.
However, Grossman teaches an apparatus being capable of liberating particles of infill material out from between the plastic blades of grass of an artificial turf and spraying the particles with the residual antimicrobial coating composition while the particles are in the air above the turf (Abstract). In embodiments, the chemical composition comprises a residual sanitizing coating composition comprising an organosilane selected from the group consisting of 3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl dimethyl octadecyl ammonium chloride, 3-(trihydroxysilyl) propyl dimethyl octadecyl ammonium chloride, 3-chloropropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-chloropropylsilanetriol, 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, 3-aminopropylsilanetriol, homopolymers thereof, and mixtures thereof ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have applied a coating composition comprising an organosilane to the infill of Park in view of Smollet in order to provide the infill with a residual self-sanitizing coating, and to thereby reduce or eliminate the transfer of pathogens between individuals interacting on the artificial turf (Grossman: [0002], [0007] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Grossman teaches that, in embodiments, the chemical composition comprises a residual sanitizing coating composition comprising an organosilane selected from the group consisting of 3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl dimethyl octadecyl ammonium chloride, 3-(trihydroxysilyl) propyl dimethyl octadecyl ammonium chloride, 3-chloropropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-chloropropylsilanetriol, 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, 3-aminopropylsilanetriol, homopolymers thereof, and mixtures thereof ([0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aumonier et al. (US 2018/0080183 A1) teaches organic infill that can further include a layer of olive pit particles or extruded composite (Abstract and end of [0026]).
Harmeling et al. (US 2020/0224374 A1) teaches an infill mixture that comprises between 70 vol % and 50 vol % of cork particulates and between 30 vol % and 49 vol % respectively of smooth, hard granules ([0013] and [0021]). The granules may have a thermoplastic outer surface coated onto a non-thermoplastic core ([0019]).
Siefert (US 2023/0243110 A1) teaches artificial turf infill consisting of granules comprising a compostable polymer (Abstract). The granules further comprise natural fibers ([0028]-[0030] and [0033]).
Nedi (US 2024/0301632 A1) teaches infill material for turf having at least one biodegradable biopolymer, at least one vegetable component and at least one plasticizer (Abstract). See [0020]-[0021], [0052]-[0053], [0055] and [0061].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights