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 Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the phrase “grass blades (15)”, which includes a numeral directed to the drawings (i.e., an artifact of the present specification). The term “(15) should be deleted. 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 1-12 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 the phrase “said filiform elements”, but the preceding claim language specified multiple pluralities of filiform elements. It is not clear which filiform elements are referenced by the phrase “said filiform elements”. It is not clear if “said filiform elements” is directed to a specific one of the pluralities of filiform elements, or every plurality of filiform elements. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a filiform element. Claim 1 additionally recites the phrase “said first net”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “said first net” will be interpreted as directed to the first biodegradable net.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “said first net”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “said first net” will be interpreted as directed to the first biodegradable net. Claim 2 additionally recites the phrase “at least one copolymer”, but it is not clear if the claim is attempting to specify PBSA as a copolymer, or if instead, the claim intends to recite a copolymer of PBSA and polyhydroxyalkanoate. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as requiring a copolymer of PBSA.
Claims 3-4 recite the phrase “the total amount of polymers”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase will be interpreted as directed to a total amount of polymers.
Claims 5-9 recite the phrase “said first net”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “said first net” will be interpreted as directed to the first biodegradable net. In addition, the claim recites the phrase “said filiform elements”, but it is not clear which filiform elements, specifically, are referenced. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a filiform element.
Claim 9 recites the trademark “Joncryl®”. It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. If a claimed trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), per MPEP 2173.05(u). Since the present trademark “Joncryl®” is used to identify a particular material, the present claim fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 10 recite the phrase “said first net”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “said first net” will be interpreted as directed to the first biodegradable net.
Claim 12 is rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 10.
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, 3-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiler (DE202015104216U1) in view of Kikutani et al (US2019/0003082A1) and Sin (KR102012640B1). Heiler and Sin are read from respective English machine translations which have been placed in the application file.
With regards to claim 1, Heiler discloses a fiber-reinforced turf layer (i.e., a hybrid turf) depicted as comprising a plurality of vertical sections of reinforcing fibers 2 (i.e., a plurality of fibers grouped into skeins each comprising a plurality of filiform elements), and further, Heiler teaches that an additional net of reinforcing fibers may be introduced (i.e., characterized in that it comprises a first net) (Heiler - Translation: abstract; page 4, last paragraph, “1 shows a three-dimensional…”; page 5, third and fourth paragraphs, “2 shows a three-dimensional…” and “3 shows a three-dimensional…” Figs. 1-3). When the reinforcing fibers are exposed to humidity or UV radiation, the reinforcing fibers begin to biodegrade (i.e., the first net is a first biodegradable net), and further, the reinforcing fibers comprise polyhydroxyalkanoate (Heiler: page 2, fifth paragraph, “The object of the invention is achieved…”; page 3, first paragraph, “Furthermore, it is provided that…”).
Heiler does not appear to disclose or teach the inclusion of a nucleant or functional additive according to present claim 1.
Kikutani is directed to a biodegradable fiber comprising polyhydroxyalkanoate useful for agriculture and non-clothing fiber products (i.e., artificial turf being a non-clothing fiber product similar to those used in agriculture), the polyhydroxyalkanoate including pentaerythritol as a nucleant (Kikutani: abstract; para. [0001], [0018], and [0077]; claim 1). Kikutani teaches that it is well-known in the art to blend pentaerythritol into polyhydroxyalkanoate in order to improve crystallization (i.e., which appears to be required for processing) (Kikutani: para. [0010] and [0050]). The improved crystallization further improves the tensile strength of the resulting fibers (Kikutani: para. [0050]). Heiler and Kikutani are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate compositions for use in outdoor non-clothing fiber products. Kikutani is considered reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention in that it selects the same material (i.e., pentaerythritol) for the same purpose (i.e., to ensure nucleation). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the pentaerythritol of Kikutani in the fiber of Heiler, as adding pentaerythritol to polyhydroxyalkanoate is well-known (i.e., Kikutani discusses pentaerythritol as if it is both well-known and required for polyhydroxyalkanoate so that it exhibits appropriate processing characteristics) (see above discussion). Further, adding pentaerythritol would have been obvious from the viewpoint of improving processing and tensile strength (see above discussion).
Heiler and Kikutani still do not teach the inclusion of a functional additive according to present claim 1.
Sin is directed to a pile yarn composition for artificial turf comprising beeswax as an emulsifying wax (Sin – Translation: abstract; page 2, “Another object of the present invention, the surfactant is excellent…”; page 4, “Natural surfactants include…”). As best understood from Sin, it is well-known to add emulsifying waxes such as beeswax to artificial turf compositions known in the art, in order to inhibit growth of microorganisms and suppress the generation of static electricity (Sin: page 2, “Another object of the present invention, the surfactant is excellent…”). Kikutani further teaches that a lubricant such as wax should be added to its composition such as in order to allow for improved fiber threating and spinnability, and other lubricants known in the art may be selected (Kikutani: para. [0058]). Heiler and Kikutani are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of artificial turf products. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated beeswax into the composition of Heiler and Kikutani, in order to enable inhibition of microgorganism growth and to suppress the generation of static electricity (see above discussion). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have additionally incorporated beeswax as it solves the problem suggested by Kikutani (i.e., that a lubricant or wax known in the art should be added for improved processing) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Heiler, Kikutani, and Sin teach the inclusion of polyhydroxyalkanoate (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 4, as best understood from Heiler, the amount of reinforcing fiber material (i.e., the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate) affects the shear strength of the base layer of the formed structure (Heiler: page 3, first two paragraphs, “Furthermore, it is provided…” and “Advantageously, it is provided that…”). It is additionally noted that the polyhydroxyalkanoate provides the biodegradability function taught by Heiler (i.e., a person of ordinary skill would infer that the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate relative to other polymeric materials affects the biodegradability of the fiber composition) (Heiler: page 3, first two paragraphs, “Furthermore, it is provided…” and “Advantageously, it is provided that…”). Based on the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate relative to the total amount of other polymers as a result-effective variable, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate based on a desired shear strength and biodegradability (see above discussion). Therefore, the claimed amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate is considered non-distinguishing.
With regards to claim 5, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included epoxidized soybean oil in the fiber composition of Heiler, Kikutani, and Sin, since epoxidized soybean oil is a known, desired lubricant for the composition taught by Kikutani (Kikutani: para. [0063]).
With regards to claim 6, as best understood from Heiler, the amount of reinforcing fiber material (i.e., the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate) affects the shear strength of the base layer of the formed structure (see above discussion). It is additionally noted that the polyhydroxyalkanoate provides the biodegradability function taught by Heiler (i.e., a person of ordinary skill would infer that the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate relative to other polymeric materials affects the biodegradability of the fiber composition) (see above discussion). Based on the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate relative to the total amount of other polymers as a result-effective variable, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate based on a desired shear strength and biodegradability (see above discussion). Therefore, the claimed amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate is considered non-distinguishing.
With regards to claim 7, the composition of Heiler, Kikutani, and Sin includes pentaerythritol (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, the composition of Heiler, Kikutani, and Sin includes Beeswax (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 11, Heiler discloses use of its fiber-reinforced turf layer such that natural grass protrudes from the top of a base layer of reinforcement fibers, the natural gras being reinforced by the reinforcing fibers (i.e., including a plurality of grass blades interspersed with the plurality of synthetic fibers) (Heiler: page 3, last paragraph, “Furthermore, it is advantageously provided…” through to page 4).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 2, 9-10, and 12 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 is a list of reasons for the indication of distinguishing subject matter.
The closest prior art of record are Heiler (DE202015104216U1), Kikutani et al (US2019/0003082A1), and Sin (KR102012640B1).
With regards to claim 2, none of the prior art of record discloses a copolymer comprising 1,4-butanediol, succinic acid, and adipic acid (PBSA), nor does the prior art of record disclose adding such a polymer to the composition of Heiler, Kikutani, and Sin. In addition, it is not generally known in the art to mix PBSA with polyhydroxyalkanoate to form fibers suitable for use in hybrid turf applications. None of the prior art suggests that polymers of any genus which PBSA falls within may be used (i.e., Heiler and Kikutani each prescribe which materials can be added with maintenance of their inventive effects, such as waxes or lubricants, but PBSA or similar materials are not listed as suitable). In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would lack an expectation of success with respect to mixing PBSA into the composition of the prior art, and further, the prior art appears to limit in such manner as to preclude PBSA.
With regards to clam 9, none of the prior art of record discloses the inclusion of a viscosity modifier or compatibilizer among the listed species. As best understood, none of the listed species are known to be compatible with the materials of the prior art of record, and moreover suitably used with the materials of the prior art of record to form a hybrid artificial turfgrass.
With regards to claim 10, none of the prior art of record discloses the inclusion of a backing element made of the claimed material and in the claimed position. Heiler already teaches a specific hybrid turf structure, which appears to preclude providing a backing element in the same location made of the claimed material (i.e., the material of Heiler, as best understood, is to be used as is). It is additionally unclear how a person of ordinary skill would incorporate a backing into the structure of Heiler without rendering it inoperable for its intended purpose. It is additionally noted that such materials used for the claimed material tend to go against the requirements of Heiler (i.e., Heiler requires its biodegradability to be instantiated only under certain conditions, and natural organic materials do not necessarily instantiate biodegradability in the same manner as the polymer of Heiler, which could lead to a mismatch of biodegradation rates, rendering the structure of Heiler inoperable).
Claim 12 depends from claim 10, and therefore, claim 12 contains the distinguishing subject matter of claim 10.
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
