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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 17, in the reply filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18 – 20 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cook (US 2005/0158482 A1).
Cook is directed to a modular indoor/outdoor synthetic sports turf (Title).
As to claims 1 and 4, Cook teaches a modular synthetic grass playing surface system formed from a plurality of modular units. Each modular unit has a synthetic grass layer placed upon predetermined sized pallets having a pre-installed elastomeric layer (Abstract). The Examiner equates the modular unit of synthetic grass layer to Applicant’s “turf segment” and the pre-installed elastomeric layer to Applicant’s “base pad”. Cook teaches the synthetic grass surface 64 is adhered to the top of the elastomeric material 62 using an adhesive 70 [0027]; the Examiner equates this to anticipating the limitation of “laminated”. The Examiner submits that the pre-installed elastomeric layer would be more rigid compared to the synthetic grass as Applicant does not indicate which portion of the turf segment is being compared to the elastomeric layer. Therefore, a individual tufts of turf by nature are more flexible in the raised portion above the base while the base would be more rigid inherently to hold the turf in place.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Cook teaches a plastic sleeve 74 is introduced around the modular unit 22 [0046 – 0047]; the Examiner equates this to Applicant’s “turf segment perimeter” and “base pad perimeter”.
As to claim 17, Cook teaches that the elastomeric material 62 can be made of Startrack, a cryogenically ground rubber material mixed with polymers to form a layer the elastomeric material 62 forms a cushion for the playing field [0025].
Claims 1 – 7, 10 and 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carlson et al. (US 10,471,323 B1).
Carlson et al. is directed to a replaceable wear insert assembly for playing surfaces in pitching areas and other high-wear areas of baseball and softball fields and other playing fields (Abstract).
As to claims 1 – 5, 10 and 14, Carlson et al. teach an assembly as shown in Figure 8 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Carlson et al. teaches that the assembly has a recess member that is set within a selected wear area of a playing field and an insert member that is removably set within the opening of the recess member that has a thickness such that the upper surface of the insert member lies substantially level with the surrounding areas (column 2, lines 20 – 33). The Examiner equates the recess to Applicant’s “turf segment perimeter”. Carlson et al. teach a removable insert layer 20 made of a layer of synthetic playing surface 36 such as turf or synthetic track material attached to a rigid panel 30 constructed to be resistant to both compressing and bowing and a layer of synthetic playing surface 38 such as turf or synthetic track material (column 5, lines 20 – 68 and column 6, lines 1 – 15). Carlson et al. teach that the assembly can generally correspond to pitching area of a softball or baseball field (column 2, lines 29 – 32). The Examiner equates this to Applicant’s “footing”. As shown above in Figure 8, the outer shell member 24 and side wall 72 can correspond to Applicant’s “foundation” and “foundation walls”.
As to claim 6, Carlson et al. teaches a series of raised ribs 66 (shown in Figure 8 above) upon which the bottom of the recess member rests. (column 5, lines 40 – 55).
As to claim 7, Carlson et al. demonstrate in Figure 8 above that the synthetic playing surface 36 and the rigid panel 30 are coextensive which the Examiners equates to “occupy the same position in a direction perpendicular to the laminated direction”.
As to claims 13 and 16, Carlson et al. demonstrate in Figure 8 above that the layer of synthetic playing surface 38 (which can be a turf as described above) can function as Applicant’s “second base pad” or “turf on a top face opposite the bottom face”
As to claim 15, Carlson et al. shows in all the Figures that the inserted turf segment is a rectangle or square which can be equated to Applicant’s “polygon”.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 10,471,323 B1) in view of Cook (US 2005/0158482 A1).
Carlson et al. teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach a first and second turf module where the first and second turf module tessellate with each other and fit in the tray perimeter as required by claim 8 and fail to teach that the first turf module and the second module tessellate with each other and fit the tray perimeter such that a majority of the first turf module perimeter extends along the tray perimeter or module perimeters defined by the plurality of turf modules, and a majority of the tray perimeter extends along the module perimeters as required by claim 9.
Cook is directed to a modular indoor/outdoor synthetic sports turf (Title).Cook teaches a modular synthetic grass playing surface system formed from a plurality of modular units. Each modular unit has a synthetic grass layer placed upon predetermined sized pallets having a pre-installed elastomeric layer (Abstract). The Examiner equates the modular unit of synthetic grass layer to Applicant’s “turf segment” and the pre-installed elastomeric layer to Applicant’s “base pad”. Cook teaches the synthetic grass surface 64 is adhered to the top of the elastomeric material 62 using an adhesive 70 [0027]. As shown in Figure 2 below from Cook, each pallet 52 is closely fitted with an adjacent pallet 52 and each pallet is connected using roads and hex nuts [0024]. The Examiner submits this is equivalent to Applicant’s “tessellate”. Note the configuration in Figure 2 below appears be in the same configuration as Applicant’s Figure 6 reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
363
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to tessellate adjacent turf modules as suggested by Cook et al. in the system of Carlson et al. to provide additional flexibility to replace and customization of the turf system surface.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 10,471,323 B1) in view of Vachon (US 2020/0181855).
Carlson et al. teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach bottom tray portion defines an aperture below the turf segment.
Vachon is directed to a panel assembly to be laid over a base surface and under a carpet-like top layer to install a multi-layered sports-playing field. The padding assembly comprises a panel comprising a top face and a bottom face, with the top face of the panel facing the carpet-like top layer and the panel further comprising drainage holes fluidly connecting the top face to the bottom face. The padding assembly also comprises a drain mat affixed to the bottom face of the panel with the drain mat operating as a fluid-permeable layer distancing the bottom face from the base surface (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize drainage holes as suggested by Vachon in the assembly specifically in the bottom portion of Carlson et al. motivated by the desire to create a turf assembly with appropriate drainage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 10,471,323 B1) in view of Murphy et al. (US 2009/0208674).
Carlson et al. teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach that the turf system comprises a tag fixed with the bottom face, where the tag is formed from a flexible ribbon having a length greater than a combined width of the turf segment and base pad.
Murphy et al. is directed to a portable synthetic grass turf assembly--that is capable of being assembled, transported, disassembled, and stored--includes a plurality of synthetic grass module units that can be laid side by side atop a base surface to provide a continuous synthetic grass surface for various activities (Abstract). Murphy shows in Figure 1 as provided below a lip 42 attached to the back of the tile 12 via its border 24. The barrier 40 and lip 42 configuration allows multiple modules 10 to be stacked upon each other during storage as depicted in Figure 9 as provided below. The lip 42 can be equated to Applicant’s tag of a flexible ribbon.
PNG
media_image5.png
227
397
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
374
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a lip 42 as suggested by Murphy et al. in the assembly of Carlson et al. motivated by the desire to allow multiple modules to be stacked upon each other for ease of transport to the installation site.
Regarding the limitation that the ribbon has a length greater than a combined width of the turf segment and the base pad, Murphy et al. is silent to dimensions of the ribbon. However, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to creating the lip with a length greater than the combined width of the turf segment and the base pad in order to determine the optimal dimensions of the tab for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights