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; which is an RCE of Serail Number 18/956483. Amended claims 1, 21-22 are noted.
In light of the new prior art, the examiner has withdrawn the allowable subject matter. The examiner regrets the inconvenience.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
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 8 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.
In claim 8 line 2, the term “infill particles” lacks antecedent basis and/or is confusing as to what it is referring to as there was no previous mention of said term.
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, 12-14, 17, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 101728513) (see English Translation) in view of Walters (WO 99/28557).
Lee teaches a method for making an artificial turf structure comprising a support unit, a pile unit, and a porous coating unit with excellent recyclability (abstract). A coating layer which enhances morphological stability and drawn strength is used to coat an artificial turf field (p.2 paragraphs 1-2). The support can be a woven or nonwoven fabric (p.2 last paragraph). Specifically, the process comprises spraying a powder composition onto the support (p.4 section b) and subsequently heat treated and pressurized with a cooling roller (p.5 Example 1), which reads on the newly added compacting step. While Lee teaches that the material is chosen in consideration of the physical properties desired (p.4 section b), the reference fails to teach the claimed properties.
Walters teaches an artificial turf (title) which comprises a first carpet layer (1), a second layer (2), and a third intermediate adhesive layer (7) and 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). It would have been obvious to utilize the claimed properties in Lee with the expectation of success because Walters teaches desired properties in artificial turf.
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 Lee teaches turf fibers (p.6 paragraph 4).
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 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 22, Lee teaches pressurizing with a cooling roller (p.5 Example 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 101728513) (see English Translation) and Walters (WO 99/28557) and further in view of Sandford et al. (7,261,867). The combination of Lee/Walters 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 Lee et al. (KR 101728513) (see English Translation) and Walters (WO 99/28557) and further in view of Sick et al. (CA 3010760). The combination of Lee/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 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 Lee et al. (KR 101728513) (see English Translation) and Walters (WO 99/28557) and further in view of Sick et al. (2020/0354901). The combination of Lee/Walters 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 15, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 101728513) (see English Translation) and Walters (WO 99/28557) and further in view of Aumonier et al. (2018/0080183). The combination of Lee/Walters fails to teach infill particles.
Aumonier teaches an organic infill for artificial turf fields (title) in which the fields contain infill materials and composition using an infill layer (0002-0003) and different particles sizes (0007-0015). To utilize infill particles in the combination would have been obvious because Aumonier teaches of using infill particles for artificial turf fields.
Regarding claim 21, Aumonier teaches particle sieve size for an infill layer (0028).
Regarding claim 23, Walters teaches fibers in an artificial turf (p.1 second paragraph) and Aumonier teaches replacing (0026).
.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 101728513) (see English Translation) and Walters (WO 99/28557) and further in view of Sick et al. (2021/0230814). The combination of Lee/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 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).
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 09/09/2026
Prosecution Insights