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 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 5-7, 10-15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walters (WO 99/28557).
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).
Regarding claim 2, Walters teaches a carpet (p.3 paragraphs 1-2) and doesn’t teach a cation or anion, which meets the limitation of non-ionic.
Regarding claim 5, Walters teaches heat resistance (p.7 second full paragraph).
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 high melting point (p.2 penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Walters teaches a backing (p.2 first paragraph) and bonding (p.2 penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Walters teaches elastomeric particulate material (p.4 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 12-14, Walters teaches different particles sizes (p.5 first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Walters teaches color (p.3 first paragraph) and heat resistance (p.7 second full paragraph).
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 claim 19, Walters teaches curing (p.4 second full paragraph).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) in view of KR 10-2019-0024247.
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 a silane.
KR’247 teaches a silane modifier such as hexamethyldisilazane which is covalently bonded for artificial turf (0022-0024). It would have been obvious to utilize a silane modifier in Walters with the expectation of success because KR’247 teaches of using a silane modifier for artificial turf.
Claims 4, 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) in view of Sick et al. (CA 3010760). Walters 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 process of Walters 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) in view of Pfitzer et al. (WO 2022/248440). Walters fails to teach an antimicrobial compound.
Pfitzer teaches an artificial grass lawn with spreadable granules (title) in which an artificial turf pitch has an antimicrobial finish in the form of polymer matrix incorporated silver ions (description, pp.24-25). It would have been obvious to utilize an antimicrobial finish in Walters with the expectation of success because Pfitzer teaches of using an antimicrobial finish in an artificial turf.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) in view of Sick et al. (2021/0230814). Walters 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 Walters with the expectation of success because Sick teaches of using an infill layer having an upper and lower layer.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (WO 99/28557) in view of Hinkel (2012/0031814). Walters fails to teach removing infill particles.
Hinkel teaches of recycling artificial turf (title) by removing infill particles from synthetic turf (0010). It would have been obvious to remove infill particles in Walters with the expectation of success because Hinkel teaches of removing infill particles for recycling artificial turf.
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 1715 01/05/2026