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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-19, 21-23 are pending in this application. Amended claims 1-2, 4-9, 15-19; canceled claims 3, 11, 20; and newly added claims 21-23 are noted.
The amendment dated 04/13/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendments to the title and claims. In view of said amendments, the objection to the title and the previous art rejection have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In newly added claim 21, the term “average sieve size” is deemed new matter as there appears to be no support for this term in the original specification.
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.
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, 5-7, 10, 12-15, 17, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) in view of Aumonier et al. (2018/0080183).
Walters teaches an artificial turf (title) which is comprises a first carpet layer (1), a second layer (2), and a third intermediate adhesive layer (7) which is used to restore its resting condition i.e. resistance to distortion (abstract), which meets the claimed limitation of mechanical resilience. In addition the second layer can be waterproof resilient (p.4 3rd paragraph). However, the reference fails to teach the newly added limitation of an artificial turf field.
Aumonier teaches an organic infill for artificial turf fields (title) in which the fields contain infill materials and composition (0003). To utilize an artificial turf field in Walters would have been obvious because Aumonier teaches of using organic infill for an artificial turf field.
Regarding claim 5, Walters teaches resistance to distortion (abstract), which meets the claimed limitation of mechanical resilience.
Regarding claim 6, Walters teaches a thermoplastic adhesive with substantial resistance to ultraviolet light (p.2 lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 7, Walters teaches heat resistance (p.7 second full paragraph) and Aumonier teaches turf fibers (0025).
Regarding claim 10, Walters teaches a backing (p.2 first paragraph) and bonding (p.2 penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 12-14, Walters teaches different particles sizes (p.5 first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Aumonier teaches an infill layer of a turf field (0002) and different particle sizes (0008-0015).
Regarding claim 17, the applicant requires diffusing by gravity. In general, all films are deposited by gravity unless some outside force such as magnetism is utilized. To utilize gravity would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding newly added claim 21, Aumonier teaches particle sieve size for an infill layer (0028).
Regarding newly added claim 23, Walters teaches fibers in an artificial turf (p.1 second paragraph) and Aumonier teaches replacing (0026).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) and Aumonier et al. (2018/0080183) and further in view of Sandford et al. (7,261,867). The combination of Walters/Aumonier fails to teach the claimed surfactant.
Sandford teaches organo-sulfates (title) using sodium bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate (Example 20) for use in artificial turf (col.9 line 65 – col.11 line 13). To utilize sodium bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate in the combination would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Sandford teaches of using same in artificial turf.
-------------------
Claims 4, 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) and Aumonier et al. (2018/0080183) and further in view of Sick et al. (CA 3010760). The combination of Walters/Aumonier fails to teach a hydrogel.
Sick teaches a method for manufacturing an artificial turf infill comprising a granulate, a pigment, and a fluid binding agent (abstract). In one embodiment, the granulate can contain a hydrogel of methyl-cellulose (p.5 lines 23-25). It would have been obvious to utilize a hydrogel in the combination with the expectation of success because Sick teaches of using a hydrogel to form an artificial turf infill.
Regarding claim 8, Sick teaches a gel (p.2 lines 25-34).
Regarding claim 16, Sick teaches a hydrogel (p.5 lines 23-25).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) and Aumonier et al. (2018/0080183) and further in view of Sick et al. (2020/0354901). The combination of Walters/Aumonier fails to teach thymol or citronella oil.
Sick teaches an artificial turf infill material for disinfecting artificial turfs (title) in which citronella oil is used (0043-0044). It would have been obvious to utilize citronella oil in the combination with the expectation of success because Sick teaches of using citronella oil to disinfect artificial turf.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) and Aumonier et al. (2018/0080183) and further in view of Sick et al. (2021/0230814). The combination of Walters/Aumonier fails to teach upper and lower layers.
Sick teaches an artificial turf system having two elastic layers (title) in which the infill layer has an upper and lower e-layer (0095). It would have been obvious to utilize an infill layer having an upper layer and a lower layer in the combination with the expectation of success because Sick teaches of using an infill layer having an upper and lower layer.
Regarding claim 19, Walters teaches curing (p.4 second full paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is well known to maintain a synthetic turf athletic field having infill material by brushing and decompacting as noted in McAnany et al. (2016/018387). However, the reference fails to teach brushing and compacting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant first argues that the cited art does not teach or suggest altering a property of an artificial turf field with a turf modifier compound (p.7 last paragraph).
The examiner agrees and notes the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the interpretation of Walters fails to teach the claimed invention (pp.8-10).
The examiner disagrees. It is specifically noted that the claimed invention simply recites applying a turf modifier compound over an artificial turf field having a carpet of infill layer such that a property is changed. Walters teaches a first carpet layer 1 followed by a two layers 2, 7 (abstract). At least of the two layers can be considered the modifier compound.
Applicant next argues that the term “field” connotes an installed surface that is assembled and is distinguished from a product assembled in a facility (p.11 second paragraph).
The examiner disagrees. It is noted that nowhere in the specification is there any support for such a definition. Indeed, there is hardly a difference between an artificial turf and an artificial turf field. Regardless, Aumonier was cited to show the conventionality of coating an artificial turf field.
Applicant next argues that the reference fail to teach sulfosuccinate as the specific anionic surfactant in claim 2 (p.11-12).
The examiner agrees and notes the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 5 heat resistance and argues that Walters’ teaching of “resistant to heat” is not the same (p.12).
The examiner disagrees. The examiner fails to comprehend how “resistant to heat” is not the same as heat resistant. Indeed, it is the examiner’s position that they mean the same thing.
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 5 specular reflectance (p.12).
The examiner agrees. It is noted that independent claim 1 requires one of 12 properties. If one of the properties is met by the reference, it doesn’t matter what the other 11 properties are. It is specifically noted that Walters teaches mechanical resilience and waterproof resilient as noted above. To modify a reflectance such as specular reflectance in claim 5 is irrelevant if the references teaches mechanical resilience.
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 6 fails uv radiation resistance (pp.12-13).
The examiner disagrees. It is specifically noted that Walters teaches “substantial resistance to ultraviolet light” (p.2 lines 7-8), which the examiner contends meets the claimed limitation.
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 7 fibers in a carpet which alters heat reflection (p.13).
The examiner disagrees. Walters teaches of a carpet with fibers (p.3 second and third paragraphs), which affect properties including heat reflection.
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 10 covalently bonding to fibers and backing (pp.13-14).
The examiner disagrees. Walters teaches a backing (p.2 first paragraph) and bonding (p.2 penultimate paragraph). Specifically, Walters teaches any conventional bonding process (p.8 first full paragraph and p.11 fifth paragraph), which can produce covalent bonds.
Applicant next argues that Walters is silent on infill in the carpet and particle size (p.14).
The examiner disagrees. Walters teaches different particles sizes (p.5 first full paragraph) and Aumonier teaches infill (abstract).
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 15 a dressing layer (pp.14-15).
The examiner agrees in part. The examiner concedes that the prior art references fail to teach a dressing layer. However, Walters teaches fibers in a first layer which has a dark green color like healthy real grass (p.3 first paragraph), which reads on the claimed dressing layer.
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 17 gravity and that the examiner has mischaracterized the limitation (pp.15-16).
The examiner disagrees. The examiner contends that gravity is prevalent in all deposition processes which will behave according to gravity outside any other influence. Applicant has not argued how the claimed invention different from these other deposition processes. Simply put, there appears to be no factual evidence and/or definition distinguishing the gravity in the claimed process versus gravity in other processes.
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 19 an infill layer (p.17).
The examiner agrees. Aumonier teaches infill (abstract).
Applicant next argues that Sick ‘760 fails to teach applying a hydrogel (p.18).
The examiner disagrees. Sick teaches an artificial turf infill having a hydrogel of methyl-cellulose (title, p.5 lines 23-25).
Applicant next argues that the references fail to teach claim 9 fails to teach thymol or citronella oil (p.19).
The examiner agrees and notes the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant next argues that the refences fail to teach an upper layer and a lower layer (pp.19-20).
The examiner agrees in part. The examiner concedes that the references fail to teach an upper layer and a lower layer. However, Sick teaches an artificial turf system having two elastic layers (title, 0095). It is the examiner’s position that one is an upper layer and the other is a lower layer.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 04/22/2026
Prosecution Insights