Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 5/21/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 19-33 and 36-49 are cancelled. Claims 13-15 and 34-35 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-18 and 34-35 remain pending.
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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 34-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (claims 10-12) in the reply filed on 5/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden to the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement of 3/23/2026, Species A and B have different structures and thus classifications and therefore they require searches using unique keywords in separate classifications. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, replace “a mounted” with “are mounted”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP78 (JP-57101078-A – of record, English translation provided by the Examiner), hereinafter JP78, in view of SICK (US-2019/0017206), hereinafter SICK. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, JP78 discloses A method of manufacturing an artificial turf {[claim 1], [FIG. 1]}, comprising:
moving a carrier mesh through an air gap formed between a first electrode and a second electrode of a dielectric barrier discharge device {[FIG. 1] electrodes 1 and 2, A is the air gap, 10 is the carrier mesh, [claim 3]},
wherein the carrier mesh includes a backside, wherein the carrier mesh includes a frontside {[FIG. 1] 12 is the backside and 11 are the frontside}.
wherein the first electrode is adjacent to the backside, wherein the second electrode is adjacent to the frontside {[FIG. 1] first electrode 1 is adjacent to the back side 12 and second electrode 2 is adjacent to the frontside 11},
and wherein the carrier mesh includes fibers integrated {[FIG. 1] note fibers on 11}.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 1 “such that a portion of the fibers are exposed on the backside”, JP78, illustratively shows this limitation {[FIG. 1] note 11 is exposed from 12}.
In the alternative, and if it can be argued that JP78 does not discuss this limitation in the text of its invention and JP78 only generally talks about tufting the fibers {[P6, 4th ¶]}, then JP78 is silent on the fibers being exposed on the backside.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to manufacturing artificial turf, SICK discloses such that a portion of the fibers are exposed on the backside {[abstract], [FIG. 2] note fibers 104 are exposed from back of 102}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of SICK in the method of JP78 and have tufted the fiber with exposure from backside.
As discussed, JP78 only generally talks about tufting and is silent on the details of this system, One would have been motivated to have looked to prior art to determine an appropriate method for tufting. Such art is SICK. Furthermore, and as shown by SICK such method of tufting that is used for making artificial turf, creates a carrier mesh with fibers exposed.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 1, modified JP78 discloses compressing the fibers exposed on the frontside {[FIG. 1] note 11 and fibers are pressed against electrode roller 2 by the tension provided by rollers 9 and 13; the pressing is realized since the rotation of roller 2 moves the carrier mesh 10 forward, therefore, there has to be a friction force between the fibers and roller, this force results in compression or pressing};
applying a dielectric barrier discharge to the backside of the carrier mesh for plasma-activating the backside {[claim 3] note the non-conductive resin layer is the dielectric, [FIG. 1] note back side 12 is exposed to the discharge and since JP78 method is similar to the instant invention, therefore it is a dielectric barrier discharge and the backside is plasma activated};
and applying a backing layer to the plasma-activated backside of the carrier mesh for providing the artificial turf {[FIG. 1] 16/17/18 applies backing layer 19}.
Regarding claim 2, JP78 discloses wherein the fibers exposed on the frontside within the air gap are mechanically compressed against the second electrode {[FIG. 1] note 11 or fibers are in mechanical contact and pressed against the second electrode 2, also see compression discussed under claim 1 above}.
Regarding claims 3-4 limitations of “wherein compressing the fibers exposed on the frontside reduces a pile height of the fibers (claim 3), wherein, compressing the fibers reduces a volume of air within the air gap between the second electrode and the backside (claim 4)”, as discussed above, JP78 discloses compressing the carrier mesh 10 against roller electrode 2. The limitations of claims 3-45 are the intended results of such pressing.
As the combination of JP78 and SICK discloses the same process steps in substantially the same manner as the instant claims, it is the Examiner’s position that substantially the same results will occur which is the reduction of pile height and volume of air. Notably, the applicant’s disclosure does not specify any additional method steps that results in such reduction. If applying the same method steps in substantially the same manner does not inherently result in this reduction, then a question of scope of enablement and/or omitting essential method limitation can be brought for claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 5, JP78 discloses wherein fibers exposed on the frontside are compressed using a tensioning structure configured to pull the frontside of the carrier mesh against the second electrode {[FIG. 1] 9 and 13 are the tensioning structures}.
Regarding claim 6, JP78 discloses wherein the second electrode is cylindrical, wherein the tensioning structure comprises a first tensioning roller and a second tensioning roller, wherein the first tensioning roller and the second tensioning roller a mounted below the second electrode, wherein the system is configured such that the carrier mesh is threaded between the first tensioning roller and the second electrode, wherein the system is further configured such that the carrier mesh is threaded between the second electrode and the second tensioning roller {[FIG. 1] note second electrode 2 is cylindrical and the first tensioning roller is 9 and the second tensioning roller is 13 and carrier mesh 10 is threaded in between}.
Regarding claim 9 limitation of “wherein the second electrode comprises two cylindrical second electrode portions”, JP78, however, discloses only one second electrode 2 {[FIG. 1]} and is silent on two second electrodes.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to have duplicated the second electrode of JP78 and have placed this duplicated second electrode side-by-side of the original second electrode, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (VI(B).
One would have been motivated to have duplicated this second electrode for those cases where a longer residence time for plasma activation of the back side of the carrier mesh is required. The duplicated electrode will provide for this increased distance or residence time for the plasma activation.
Regarding claim 10 limitation of “wherein the two cylindrical second electrode portions are parallel and are aligned horizontally, wherein the system comprises a tensioning structure configured to pull the frontside of the carrier mesh against the two cylindrical second electrode portions, and wherein the tensioning structure is a tensioning roller mounted parallel to and between the two cylindrical second electrode portions, wherein the tensioning roller is configured such that moving the tensioning roller in a downward direction increases compression of fibers on the frontside of the carrier mesh”, the Examiner submits that at the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have placed the duplicated second electrode of JP78 side-by-side and in a parallel/aligned configuration with the original second electrode to maintain the same air gap and thus same electric barrier discharge.
Regarding a tensioning roller between the two second electrode, as discussed above, JP78 discloses that the single second electrode 2 requires two tensioning roller 9 and 13 {[FIG. 1]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to have duplicated the tensioning roller 9 of JP78 and have placed this duplicated tensioning roller after the original second electrode and before the duplicated second electrode, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (VI(B).
One would have been motivated to have duplicated this tensioning roller, so as to maintain the tension of the carrier mesh across the duplicated electrode similar to the original electrode 2 that JP78 teaches.
The Examiner notes that this duplicated tensioning roller can be configured such that its motion downward or upward can increase or decrease the tension, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, JP78 discloses wherein the first and second electrodes are elongated in a first direction, and wherein the carrier mesh is moved in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction {[FIG. 1] note first and second electrodes 1 and 2 are elongated into the page and carrier mesh moves from left to right, thus second direction is perpendicular to the first direction}.
Regarding claim 17, JP78 discloses wherein the second electrode is at least partially encased in a dielectric, the dielectric extending at least in a direction towards the first electrode {[FIG. 1] note dielectric 6 that is extended toward first electrode 1}.
Regarding claim 18, JP78 discloses wherein the second electrode is a metal cylinder which is at least partially encased in the dielectric {[FIG. 1] note 2 is a cylinder and encased in dielectric 6, [claim 3] note metal core or bar or rod}.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JP78 and SICK as applied to claims 1, 5-6, and 9-10 above, and further in view of FUKUDA (US-2010/0003483), hereinafter FUKUDA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 11-12 combination of JP78 and SICK discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 5-6, and 9-10 as discussed above. This combination is, however, silent on the limitations of claims 7-8 and 11-12 regarding the first electrode being multi-segmented (or two portions) and electrically isolated powered by separate power supplies.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to plasma treatment system, FUKUDA discloses wherein the first electrode is formed from multiple first electrode portions, wherein the multiple first electrode portions are electrically isolated and powered by separate power supplies (claim 7), wherein the multiple first electrode portions extend parallel to an axis of the cylindrical second electrode, and wherein the multiple first electrode portions are configured to generate separate dielectric barrier discharges with the second electrode (claim 8), wherein the first electrode comprises two first electrode portions, wherein each of the two first electrode portions are configured for forming the air gap with one of the two cylindrical second electrode portions for forming two separate dielectric barrier discharges (claim 11), wherein the two first electrode portions are electrically isolated and powered by separate power supplies (claim 12) {[0139]-[0140] note independent voltage control of each of the first electrode segments, [FIG. 3] 36 are the multi segmented first electrodes that are connected to their individual power source 40, thus multiple and separated barrier discharge (note the dielectric is disclosed by JP78 as disclosed above), note that all segment extend into the page, thus parallel with the second electrode and they create multiple air gaps with the second electrode, and each segment does its plasma activation, thus the backside is plasma activated (or exposed to barrier discharge) multiple times based on the number of electrodes 36, also electrodes 36 are isolated from each other}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of FUKUDA in the combination method of JP78 and SICK and have substituted the single first electrode of JP78 with a multi-segmented first electrode FUKUDA. The benefit of doing so would have been to create different discharge condition throughout the plasma discharge system as disclosed by FUKUDA in its own application {[0139]-[0140]}. In JP78, such independent control of each segment of the first electrode provides with the flexibility to impart different treatment condition to different regions of the artificial turf, if such need arises.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights