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 .
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 2-4 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.
The phrase “preferably” and “more preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2017/0265547 to Sick in view of USPAP 2024/0328094 to Young and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2015/0209983 to Turner, USPAP 2013/0199755 to Sawafta, and/or USPAP 2017/0051453 to Sick (hereinafter referred to as Sick 2).
Claim 1, Sick discloses an artificial turf, comprising: artificial turf fibers; a carrier mesh including a backside, wherein the artificial turf fibers are tufted to the carrier mesh, wherein a portion of the artificial turf fibers are exposed on the backside; and a polyurethane layer coating the backside of the carrier mesh, the polyurethane layer securing the portion of the artificial turf fibers to the carrier mesh, wherein the polyurethane layer is formed from a polyol component and a isocyanate component, wherein the polyurethane layer comprises a filler between 215 and 300 parts per weight for every 100 parts per weight of the polyol component (see entire document including the Figures and [0007]-[0013], [0026]-[0029], [0052], [0054], [0088], [0099] and [0122]).
Sick does not appear to mention the artificial turf fiber tuft withdrawal force but Young discloses that a withdrawal force of at least 35 N and preferably at least 50 N is required by sports associations as a minimum (see entire document including [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the artificial turf of Sick with the claimed withdrawal force, because it is required by sports associations as a minimum and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a fiber withdrawal force on the basis of the turf suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 2, the polyurethane layer comprises the filler between 220 and 260 parts per weight for every 100 parts per weight of the polyol component, wherein the polyurethane layer preferably comprises the filler between 230 and 260 parts per weight for every 100 parts per weight of the polyol component, and wherein the polyurethane layer more preferably comprises the filler between 240 and 260 parts per weight for every 100 parts per weight of the polyol component [0099].
Claim 3, the filler comprises any one of the following: calcium carbonate, coal-fly-ash, aluminum tri hydrate (ATH), Magnesium Oxide, and combinations thereof, and wherein the filler preferably comprises or consists of calcium carbonate [0088].
Claim 4, the polyol component comprises any one of the following: a mixture of a polypropylene glycol diol and a short chain difunctional glycol and a polyol mixture with primary and secondary OH-functional, and wherein the polyol component preferably comprises or consists of a mixture of a polypropylene glycol diol and a short chain difunctional glycol [0028]. Plus, absent a showing otherwise, there is no patentable difference between the substantially identical polyol component disclosed by Sick and that claimed, as both result in a substantially identical polyurethane.
Claim 5, the isocyanate component comprises any one of the following: low functionality polymeric MDI, Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), Toluol-Diisocyanate (TDI), Hexamethylenediisocyanate (HMDI), and Isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI), and wherein the isocyanate component preferably comprises or consists of low functionality polymeric MDI [0082].
Claims 6-8, Sick does not appear to mention subjecting the backside (comprising artificial turf fibers) to plasma treatment but Turner discloses that it is known in the art that plasma treatment enhances adhesion (see entire document including [0005], [0019] and claim 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply one or more plasma treatments, such as dielectric barrier discharge, to the backside to enhance adhesion.
Claims 9 and 10, Sick does not appear to mention the artificial turf fiber tuft withdrawal force but Young discloses that a withdrawal force of at least 35 N and preferably at least 50 N is required by sports associations as a minimum (see entire document including [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the artificial turf of Sick with the claimed withdrawal force, because it is required by sports associations as a minimum and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a fiber withdrawal force on the basis of the turf suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 11, Sick does not appear to mention the polyurethane layer comprising zeolite but Sawafta discloses that it is known in the art to include zeolite in an artificial turf backing as an energy management (e.g. reflecting) material (see entire document including [0006], [0008] and [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include zeolite in the polyurethane backing of Sick top provide the turf with an energy management (e.g. reflecting) property.
Claims 12 and 13, Sick does not appear to mention the artificial turf fiber tuft withdrawal force but Young discloses that a withdrawal force of at least 35 N and preferably at least 50 N is required by sports associations as a minimum (see entire document including [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the artificial turf of Sick with the claimed withdrawal force, because it is required by sports associations as a minimum and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a fiber withdrawal force on the basis of the turf suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 14, the artificial turf fibers comprise monofilaments, wherein the monofilaments comprise: at least one polymer; and the artificial turf fibers are arranged such that first parts of the monofilaments of the arranged artificial turf fibers are exposed to a bottom side of the carrier and second parts of said monofilaments are exposed to a top side of the carrier and wherein at least the first parts are embedded in and mechanically fixed by the polyurethane layer (see the Figures, [0053] and [0054]). Sick does not appear to mention a nucleating agent for crystallizing the at least one fiber polymer but Sick 2 discloses that it is known in the art to construct artificial turf fibers with a nucleating agent for crystallizing the at least one fiber polymer, the nucleating agent being an inorganic and/or an organic substance or a mixture thereof, wherein the inorganic nucleating agent consists of one or more of the following: talcum; kaolin; calcium carbonate; magnesium carbonate; silicate; silicic acid; silicic acid ester; aluminium trihydrate; magnesium hydroxide; meta- and/or polyphosphate; and coal fly ash; wherein the organic nucleating agent consists of one or more of the following: 1,2-cyclohexane dicarbonic acid salt; benzoic acid; benzoic acid salt; sorbic acid; and sorbic acid salt (see entire document including [0006]-[0025] and [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fibers as claimed to provide fibers that have an increased life expectancy and/or more durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights