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.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites an “effective rate of migration in the polymer material”, but it is not clear what constitutes an “effective rate”. The similar phrase “effective amount” has been held to be potentially indefinite, per MPEP 2173.05(c) (i.e., as best understood, the fact pattern of the present case is similar to that of the cited MPEP section). In this situation, the proper test is whether or not one skilled in the art could determine specific values from the amount based on the disclosure. However, the present specification provides no discussion of values for the phrase “effective rate”, the present specification does not provide any manner of measurement for the effective rate of migration, and the present specification does not provide any particular indication of which properties are considered “effective” (i.e., whether the rate of migration is above a certain threshold to, for example, provide mixing, or conversely, the rate of migration is sufficiently low to prevent loss of the claimed anti-slip agent). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to “a rate”. Claim 1 additionally recites “incorporated/contained in the polymer,” but this phrase is a dangling modifier. It is unclear if this phrase is attempting to modify just the claimed stearates, or every member of the claimed Markush group. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting this phrase as directed to stearates. Claim 1 additionally recites narrower and broader ranges in the claim, via the phrase “for at least one year, preferably for at least 2 years, more preferably for at least 5 years, and most preferably for at least 10 years”. From this phrase, the boundaries of the claim are not discernable. It is noted that a description of examples and preferences should be set forth in the specification, and not the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “for at least one year”. The claim additionally alternates between referring to the claimed fiber as an “artificial turf fiber” or just “the fiber”, which is inconsistent. It is not clear if the phrase “the fiber” is directed to the artificial turf fiber, or another fiber (i.e., technically, the phrase “the turf fiber” lacks antecedent basis). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claimed “fiber” will be interpreted as synonymous with the claimed artificial turf fiber. Claim 1 additionally recites “polymer materials”, which lacks antecedent basis, as the previous claim language only specifies a “polymer material”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “polymer materials” will be interpreted as “polymer material”.
Claim 1 additionally recites “is controlling the friction coefficient of the artificial turf fiber within a desired range in both wet and dry conditions, thus preventing excessive slippage of the players on the artificial turf surface in rain/wet conditions or too little slip in dry sunny conditions.” This phrase is replete with indefiniteness. The phrases “the friction coefficient”, “the players”, and “the artificial surface” each lack antecedent basis. It is unclear what the “desired range” is, and at what threshold conditions are considered “wet” versus “dry”. It is unclear what constitutes “excessive slippage” (i.e., the precise threshold at which slippage is considered excessive). It is unclear if wet conditions simply involve water or moisture, or instead, require rain, as the claim appears to describe wet conditions separately, while alternatively indicating wet conditions as synonymous with rain. Similarly, it is unclear if dry conditions simply involve water or moisture, or if instead, dry or “sunny” conditions are required. The phrases “too little slip” and “sunny” are similarly unquantifiable. As best understood, the described properties are synonymous with the incorporation of an anti-slip agent. Therefore, this recitation will simply be interpreted as “the anti-slip agent provides reduced coefficient of friction”, which is an inherent property of anti-slip agents.
Claims 2-13 and 15 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “preferably polyethylene”, but it is not clear if claim 2 requires polyethylene (i.e., it is unclear if the claim is limited to polyethylene, or setting forth a preference). The claim additionally uses the phrase “group consisting of” while referring to only a single member (in this case, polyethylene), suggesting that the claim is missing other members, rendering the claim further indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to polyethylene.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “preferably the amount of LLDPE”, but it is not clear from the claim if the claimed amount must necessarily be present, or instead, the claim is simply setting forth a preference. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as not requiring the claimed amount of LLDPE.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “the LLDPE is preferably from”, but it is not clear from the claim if the claimed amount must necessarily be present, or instead, the claim is simply setting forth a preference. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as not requiring the claimed amount of LLDPE. In addition, claim 4 recites the presence of multiple broader and narrower ranges in the same claim. It is not clear which range is intended. However, since all of the listed ranges are, as best understood, optional, the claim will be interpreted as not requiring the claimed amount of LLDPE.
Claims 5, 7, 8, 12, and 13 each recite preferential language via the terms “preferably”, “in particular”, and “preferentially” but it is not clear if the present claims strictly require the preferred embodiments (i.e., if the claims are attempting to positively recite them). In the interest of prosecution, the claimed preferences will not be viewed as required.
Claim 7 recites the inclusion of multiple ranges (i.e., a broader range and a narrower range). It is unclear which range, specifically, is met by the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to an amount of anti-slip agent (i.e., as the claimed amounts are merely preferable).
Claim 10 recites “the fiber length” and “the infill material”, which each lack antecedent basis. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 10 will be interpreted as directed to “a fiber length” and “an infill material”.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “the artificial turf fibers”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 is directed to a single fiber, and not a plurality of fibers. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 11 will be interpreted as directed to a plurality of turf fibers, each according to claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the terms “the density” and “the area”, which lack antecedent basis. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying “a density” and “an area”.
Claim 14 recites “the artificial turf”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is also unclear if claim 14 should have a dependency on a previous claim (i.e., if claim 14 is supposed to depend from, for example, claim 11). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to an artificial turf. The claim additionally recites “the FIFA standard”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear which specific FIFA standard the claim is referring to. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a standard. In addition, claim 14 is in the form of a “use” claim, which attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting a step of use at least involving coupling.
Claim 15 recites “the FIFA standard”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear which specific FIFA standard the claim is referring to. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a standard.
Claims 12-14 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al (US2013/0030123A1).
With regards to claim 1, Martin discloses an artificial turf yarn (i.e., artificial turf fiber) made of a polyolefin composition comprising a random ethylene interpolymer (i.e., a polymer material, the polymer material being a polyolefin random copolymer) including either calcium stearate or erucamide (i.e., anti-slip agents selected from the group consisting of fatty acid amides and stearates) (Martin: para. [0015], [0026], [0035], [0040], and [0069]). The amount of calcium stearate or erucamide ranges from about 0.05 to about 5 wt % based on the total weight of the composition, which overlaps the claimed range of from 0.05 to 1.0 wt %, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness per MPEP 2144.05 (Martin: para. [0069]). It is submitted that the claimed fiber friction coefficient reduction for a duration of at least one year would have been expected of the artificial turf fiber of Martin, as a composition and its properties have been held to be inseparable, per MPEP 2112. Since Martin discloses the same composition as that of the present specification, it is expected to possess the claimed fiber friction coefficient reduction (see above discussion). Alternatively, the present specification admits that stearates and erucamide are anti-slip materials (i.e., materials reducing coefficient of friction), and further, the claimed reduction for at least one year is rather broad – the claim does not require the fiber to be used in a particular process, or even to be fully functional. The claim does not preclude intentionally preserving the fiber in such manner that its surface coefficient friction is maintained (i.e., as written, the present function can be arbitrarily met by adjusting process conditions). The artificial turf fiber of Martin is considered to meet the intended use of “for soccer or rugby artificial turf”, as, not only does the artificial turf fiber have the same structure as that of the present claims, but the recited intended use is rather broad (i.e., it is submitted that any artificial turf can be used for play with soccer or rugby). As best understood, the claimed friction control property at the claimed conditions of the present claim is met by Martin, as Martin discloses a substantially identical structure, and further, the present specification admits that stearates and erucamide are each responsible for the claimed friction control property.
With regards to claim 2, the polymer material includes a low-density ethylene-octene interpolymer (i.e., an LDPE) mixed with LLDPE (Martin: para. [0035] and [0040]).
With regards to claim 3, the polymer material is a mixture of LDPE and LLDPE (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 4, the polymer material is a mixture of LDPE and LLDPE (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 6, the anti-slip agent is erucamide (i.e., a fatty acid amide) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 7, the amount of anti-slip agent ranges from about 0.05 to about 5 wt%, overlapping the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.7 wt. %, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, the artificial turf fiber further includes titanium dioxide (i.e., a reflective pigment which prevents overheating of the fiber, according to the present specification) (Martin: para. [0066]).
With regards to claim 11, multiple artificial turf fibers are coupled to a backing substrate (i.e., provided as an artificial turf comprising a plurality of the artificial turf fibers securely attached to a backing substrate) (Martin: para. [0071]).
With regards to claim 14, the artificial turf includes a coupling step (i.e., use), to form a carpeted cover (i.e., meeting the intended use of a soccer field) (Martin: para. [0014]). It is submitted that any artificial turf is capable of reducing ankle injuries (i.e., the capability of reducing ankle injuries is rather broad), as any turf is capable of reducing impact to at least some extent.
With regards to claim 15, the artificial turf is used to form a carpeted cover (i.e., meeting the intended use of a soccer field) (Martin: para. [0014]). It is submitted that any artificial turf is capable of reducing ankle injuries (i.e., the capability of reducing ankle injuries is rather broad), as any turf is capable of reducing impact to at least some extent.
Claims 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Neuhoff et al (WO2018/077850A1).
With regards to claim 5, Martin teaches an artificial turf fiber as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Martin does not appear to teach the artificial turf fiber as comprising a mixture of HDPE and LLDPE, wherein the HDPE has a density of 0.952 to 0.957 g/cc and is in an amount of 5.0 to 18 wt%.
Neuhoff is directed to an artificial turf fiber formed from renewable biomass, the artificial turf fiber including LLDPE, in addition to 5 to 15% of an HDPE having a density of 0.948 to 0.962 g/ml (i.e., 0.948 to 0.962 g/cc) (Neuhoff: claims 1, 10, 16, and 17; page 2, lines 3-6; page 4, line 10 through to page 5, line 12; page 14, “Inventive Blend 2”). Neuhoff recommends its particular amount and type of HDPE in order to ensure the artificial turf fiber is made from a renewable carbon source, and further, the amount of HDPE coincides with allowing for a higher portion of carbon atoms of the overall fiber to be derived from a renewable fiber source (taking these teachings as a whole, the type and amount of bio-based HDPE of Neuhoff appears to represent an upper, desirable limit of renewable carbon incorporation) (Neuhoff: page 2, lines 3-6; page 4, line 10 through to page 5, line 12; page 14, “Inventive Blend 2”). Martin and Neuhoff are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of artificial turf fibers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the HDPE of Neuhoff (i.e., selecting its amount and density) into the artificial turf fiber of Martin, in order to enable a higher portion of carbon atoms in the artificial turf fiber of Martin to be derived from a renewable carbon source (i.e., in order to improve the renewability of the turf of Martin) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 10, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have texturized the entire fiber (i.e., 100% of the fiber length) to have a curl, and to have it extend above an infill material in the claimed manner, in order to allow the fiber to not slip and stand upright when installed (i.e., as required for it to function as an artificial turf) (Neuhoff: page 18, line 32 through to page 19, line 21; page 21, line 20 through to page 22, line 8).
With regards to claim 12, Martin teaches an artificial turf fiber as applied to claim 11 above (see above discussion). A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have texturized the entire fiber (i.e., 100% of the fiber length, and further to have provided the fiber in an entire area) in order to allow the fiber to not slip and stand upright when installed (i.e., as required for it to function as an artificial turf) (Neuhoff: page 18, line 32 through to page 19, line 21; page 21, line 20 through to page 22, line 8). Alternatively, it is noted that the present claim language is rather broad, in that it only specifies “an area” which is covered by the claimed turf. It is submitted that a subsection of the prior art turf may be selected, such that the claim limitation is met (i.e., for example, the fibers cover 100% of an area which they naturally occupy, even if they don’t cover 100% of an overall area of the claimed turf).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 8 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following are reasons for the indication of distinguishing subject matter.
The closest prior art of record are Martin et al (US2013/0030123A1) and Neuhoff et al (WO2018/077850A1).
With respect to claim 8, Martin fails to teach the claimed amounts of LLDPE-C6, HDPE, masterbatch, and processing aid. Neuhoff teaches the incorporation of HDPE in an amount overlapping the claimed range, and Neuhoff further teaches selection of LLDPE-C6 in an overlapping amount. However, Martin further requires the inclusion of at least 10 wt. % of an olefin block copolymer. Given that the teachings of Neuhoff prescribe 5% or more of HDPE, and the claim further requires 6 to 10 wt. % masterbatch, it is apparent that any logical incorporation of the teachings of Neuhoff with the composition of Martin would result in an amount of LLDPE-C6 below the claimed amount of 80 wt. %. In other words, in evaluating the compositional requirements of claim 8, the composition requires a minimum of 80 wt.% LLDPE-C6, 8% HDPE, 6% masterbatch, 0.1% process aid, and 0.25% erucic acid amide, or, in other words, 94.35% of the total composition is accounted for by the present claim. This conflicts with the minimum of 10% olefin block copolymer required by Martin. Therefore, it is impossible to meet the claimed compositional requirements, while also meeting the compositional requirements of Martin.
With respect to claim 13, neither Martin nor Neuhoff disclose or teach a metal coordination complex with pyrithione or a zinc-based antimicrobial agent. It is noted that not all zinc compounds are necessarily capable of serving as antimicrobial agents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights