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
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9-12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 3-5, the phrase "preferably comprises or consists of" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “enhanced” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “enhanced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, e.g., the degree to which the bonds are enhanced.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferable" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In addition, claims 2-14 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 states wherein the tuft withdrawal force is greater than or equal to 40 N; but claim 1 from which it depends states the tuft withdrawal force is greater than or equal to 50 N.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 Sick et al (US 2019/0093291 A1) in view of Doesburg et al (US 20090062432 A1).
Regarding claims 1-13, Sick teaches 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; wherein the filler comprises any one of the following calcium carbonate, coal-fly-ash, aluminum trihydrate (ATH), magnesium oxide, and combinations thereof; wherein 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; wherein the isocyanate component comprises wherein the isocyanate component comprises methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI); wherein the fibers are bonded with Van-der-Waals forces (para 7, 14, 27-28, 48-49, 115, 116, 122; figs 5a-6b).
Sick fails to suggest wherein the polyurethane layer comprises a drying agent, and wherein the drying agent is preferably zeolite. However, Sick teaches the use of fillers and other additives in its polyurethane composition (para 122, 127, 133).
Doesburg teaches polyurethane compositions that are used in artificial turf comprising, polyol, isocyanate, fillers such as magnesium sulfate (i.e., drying agent), and other additives such as drying agents (e.g., molecular sieve) (para 11, 18, 58, 63, 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the fillers and additives of Doesburg with the fillers and additives of Sick, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I).
Regarding the limitations “a filler above or equal to 150 and below 215 parts per weight for every 100 parts per weight of the polyol component;” “comprises the filler between 200 and below 215 parts per weight for every 100 parts per weight of the polyol component, wherein the polyurethane layer preferably comprises the filler between 200 and below 210 parts per weight for every 100 parts per weight of the polyol component;” one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that by adjusting the amount of the constituents in the polyurethane composition the final physical and mechanical properties of the cured polyurethane layer could be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of the constituents in the polyurethane composition to optimize the final physical and mechanical properties of the cured polyurethane layer. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
The limitations instant claims 6-8 are product by process limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claims 6-8 and the product of Sick as modified by Doesburg.
Regarding the limitations “wherein the artificial turf fibers have a tuft withdrawal force greater than or equal to 50 N, wherein the artificial turf fibers preferably have a tuft withdrawal force greater than or equal to 51N;” “wherein the wherein the artificial turf fibers have the tuft withdrawal force greater than or equal to 55 N, wherein the wherein the artificial turf fibers have the tuft withdrawal force greater than or equal to 56 N;” covalent bonds and/or van der Wahl bonding;” and the limitations of 9, 10, 12, and 13; Sick teaches the structure and composition of the instant claims; and that the fibers are polyethylene and bonded with Van-der-Waals forces (para 14) (which matches the fibers of the instant embodiments (para 103 of the instant spec)); so it is deemed to inherently possess these properties.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Furthermore, Sick teaches adding polybutadien diol (PBD) into the polyurethane to increase the attachment of the PU to the fiber via Van-der-Waals forces (para 14); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of polybutadien diol (PBD) added into the polyurethane to optimize the tuft withdrawal force and the tuft binding force of the fibers and the turf.
Regarding claim 14, Sick teaches the artificial turf fibers comprise monofilaments, wherein the monofilaments comprise at least one polymer; and a nucleating agent for crystallizing the at least one 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 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, wherein 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 (para 59-81, 153; fig 6b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weaver et al (US 2010/0055358 A1) teaches polyurethane compositions that are used to make artificial turf comprising polyol, isocyanate, fillers and moisture scavengers such as zeolite (para 81, 88-96, 106-109, 122, 452). Bonavoglia et al (US 2015/0204027 A1) teaches artificial turf monofilaments wherein the surface is treated with halogen-containing plasmas multiple times (para 31-38).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights