Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 5/13/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-18 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 with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden to the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because as outlined in the restriction requirement of 3/19/2026, and due to different classifications and keywords, there is a serious search burden to the Examiner. The Applicant has not provided a specific argument as to the potential error in the Examiner’s reasoning. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of claim 7 and line 1 of claim 12, replace “at least one electrode segment” with “at least one first electrode segment” to be consistent with earlier limitations. 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “wherein the multiple first electrode segments are arranged to form multiple air gaps with the first electrode”. It is not clear which segment the limitation “the first electrode” refers to since the first electrode has plurality of segments and it is no longer a single electrode. The instant specification also does not resolve this indefiniteness. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner replaces “the first electrode” with “the second electrode”. If this replacement is correct, the instant specification needs to be corrected as well.
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 1-9 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 outer surface of a dielectric at least partially encases the second electrode {[FIG. 1] electrode 4 or second electrode is encased by dielectric 6, [claim 3] note the non-conductive resin layer is the dielectric}
wherein the carrier mesh includes a backside, and wherein the carrier mesh includes fibers integrated {[FIG. 1] 12 is the backside and 11 are the fibers}.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 24 “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 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 dielectric covers the second electrode to provide electrical isolation to form the dielectric barrier discharge {[FIG. 1] electrode 4 or second electrode is encased by dielectric 6, [claim 3] note the non-conductive resin layer provides electric isolation}.
Regarding claim 3, 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}.
Regarding claim 4, JP78 discloses wherein the second electrode comprises a curved surface symmetric about a cylindrical axis (1000), wherein the dielectric covers at least the curved surface {[FIG. 1] note 2 is a cylinder with a curved surface and encased in dielectric 6 and cylinder axis goes into the page}.
Regarding claim 5, JP78 discloses wherein the method further comprises rotating the second electrode about the cylindrical axis during transport of the carrier mesh through the air gap {[FIG. 1] note 11 is in contact with 2 and note the rotation arrow in electrode 2}.
Regarding claims 6-7, JP78 discloses wherein the first electrode is formed from at least one first electrode segment, wherein the at least one first electrode segment is mounted above the curved surface and extends along the cylindrical axis to form at least a portion of the air gap parallel to the cylindrical axis (claim 6), wherein the first electrode is formed from at least one first electrode segment, wherein the at least one electrode segment is mounted above the second electrode (claim 7) {[FIG. 1] note 3 is the at least one first electrode segment that is mounted above curved surface of second electrode 4/2 and the electrode 3 is a cylinder with axis going into the page thus parallel to air gap A}.
Regarding claim 8, JP78 discloses wherein the at least one first electrode segment forms collectively at least one dielectric barrier discharge line across a width of the carrier mesh {[FIG. 1] note the axis of both electrodes 4 and 3 goes into page parallel to the width of carrier mesh 10 that goes into page and thus experience the barrier discharge}.
Regarding claim 9 limitation of “wherein the at least one first electrode segment is assisted by gravity to form the air gap”, the Examiner notes that gravity force is applied to every object on this planet. Thus, the electrode segment is naturally assisted by gravity to form the air gap A.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JP78 and SICK as applied to claims 1 and 3-6 above, and further in view of MAJEWSKI (US 4,636,640), hereinafter MAJEWSKI. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 10-11, combination of JP78 and SICK discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3-6 as discussed above. This combination is, however, silent on the limitations of claims 10-11 regarding the electrode being connected to a pivot arm.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to corona discharge electrode, MAJEWSKI discloses wherein the at least one electrode segment is mounted to an electrode segment specific pivot arm that rotates the at least one first electrode segment into position to form the air gap (claim 10), wherein gravitational forces cause the at least one first electrode segment to contact the backside during application of the dielectric barrier discharge {note air gap is disclosed by the combination above, also note that gravity force is applied to every object on this planet, thus, the electrode segment is naturally assisted by gravity, [abstract], [FIG. 4] note the pivot of electrode 30 via arm 48}.
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 MAJEWSKI in the combination method of JP78 and SICK and have mounted the first electrode on a pivotable arm. As disclosed by MAJEWSKI the advantage of the pivotable electrode is to avoid any obstruction that prevents the movement of the carrier mesh or the material {[C3, L55-60]}.
Regarding contacting the backside, JP78 discloses that the air gap can be less than a value {[P5, 2nd ¶]}. Considering that carrier mesh 10 has a thickness, and at the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have decrease the air gap to match the size of the thickness of the carrier mesh. One would have been motivated to do so to increase the effect of plasma activation if needed.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JP78 and SICK as applied to claims 1 and 3-6 above, and further in view of FUKUDA (US-2010/0003483), hereinafter FUKUDA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 12-17, combination of JP78 and SICK discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3-6 as discussed above. This combination is, however, silent on the limitations of claims 12-17 regarding the first electrode being multi-segmented and therefore being able to implement plasma activation multiple times.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to plasma treatment system, FUKUDA discloses wherein the at least one electrode segment is multiple first electrode segments (claim 12), wherein the multiple first electrode segments are configured for independent motion to form the air gap (claim 13), wherein the multiple first electrode segments are arranged to form multiple air gaps with the second electrode such that the backside is plasma activated multiple times (claim 14), wherein the multiple first electrode segments are electrically isolated, and wherein the multiple first electrode segments are connected to independent power supplies (claim 15), wherein the method further comprises applying the dielectric barrier discharge to the backside of the carrier mesh multiple times (claim 16), wherein the dielectric barrier discharge is applied to the backside of the carrier multiple times by using multiple dielectric barrier discharge devices (claim 17) {[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 barrier discharge (note the dielectric is disclosed by JP78 as disclosed above), 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, [0157] note distance between electrodes can be changed or each segment can be configured for independent motion}.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JP78, SICK, and FUKUDA as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of MAMIYA (US-2010/0159156), hereinafter MAMIYA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 18, combination of JP78, SICK, FUKUDA discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 as discussed above. This combination is, however, silent on the limitations of claim 18 regarding reciprocating the carrier mesh.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to plasma treatment system, MAMIYA discloses wherein the dielectric barrier discharge is applied to the backside of the carrier multiple times by locally moving the carrier through the dielectric barrier discharge device in a reciprocating fashion {[0013], [0029]}.
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 MAMIYA in the combination method of JP78, SICK, and FUKUDA and have reciprocated the carrier mesh in the barrier discharge area. It is obvious that the benefit of such reciprocation is to ensure complete plasma treatment of the carrier mesh without the need to increase the energy of discharge, since as disclosed by MAMIYA this increase in energy could lead to arcing and potential damage to the substrate {[0004]}.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 7-20 of copending Application No. 18/939,903 (reference application), hereinafter APPL903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of APPL903, being an apparatus claim, recites that the component of the apparatus are configured to perform all the steps recited in instant claim 1.
Claim 2 is claimed by claim 2 of APPL903.
Claims 4-11 are claimed by claims 7-14 of APPL903, respectively.
Claims 12-13 are claimed by claim 15 of APPL903.
Claims 14-18 are claimed by claims 16-20 of APPL903, respectively.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/939,903 (reference application), hereinafter APPL903, in view of JP78.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of APPL903 claims all the limitations of claim 1, however, is silent on the limitations of claim 3.
In the same field of endeavor, 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}.
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 teaching of JP78 in APPL78, since as disclosed by JP78, this is an effective method for plasma activation of an artificial turf.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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