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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/10/2025, have been reviewed and considered. Claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 19 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 9-18 and 20-24 have been canceled and claims 25-41 have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 19 and 25-41 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendment is considered sufficient in overcoming both the double patenting and the prior art rejections of the previous Office action. This Office Action is a Final Rejection.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 33-41 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The originally filed claims were directed at a surface covering in the form of one or more tufted articles. However, claims 33-37 are directed at a method of manufacturing a tufted article and claims 38-41 are directed at a system for manufacturing a tufted article. Note that the surface covering of the originally filed claims can be made by another and material direct process and the surface covering of the originally filed claims can be made by another and materially different apparatus. For example, the surface covering of the originally filed claims can be produce by a manual tufting process with a punch needle which would not involve the use of one or more tufting machines. Note that restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 33-41 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of BEARDEN et al. (US 8,968,502 B1). Note that US 8,968,502 will herewithin be referred to as BEARDEN2.
Regarding claims 1 and 25-27, BEARDEN discloses a tufted article (as produced by the method and tufting machine of BEARDEN) defining at least a portion of a sports field (Background and Summary sections) (para 0026 and 0028) (note that one of the main differences between BEARDEN and the prior art discussed in the BACKGORUND section thereof is that BEARDEN allows the creation of much bigger pieces of the athletic field at a time which aids in better alignment of the tufted athletic field designs/logos when the pieces, including side edges thereof, are attached together). BEARDEN discloses the tufted article having a length (length of backing including tufting thereon; para 0031) along a first axis and width (width of backing including tufting thereon; para 0027) along a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis, the first and second axes being perpendicular to a vertical axis, the tufted article comprising: a backing (4) having a continuous seamless structure and having a front surface (surface wherein yarns 41, 42 extend as shown in figures 4-9; inner surface of backing 4 when attached to tenter frame 5) and a rear surface (opposite surface of figures 4-9; outer surface of backing 4 when attached to tenter frame 5) opposite the front surface (Fig. 1); and a plurality of tufts (loop and/or cut pile tufts) extending along the vertical axis and from a front surface of the backing (4), wherein each tuft of the plurality of tufts (a) is formed from yarn (41, 42) stitched (i.e. tufted) to the backing (4) and (b) has a tuft height extending from the front surface of the backing to a distal end of the tuft (Figures 1 and 4-9), wherein the plurality of tufts distributed among a plurality of patterned regions (as defined by 41, 42) of the tufted article, wherein each patterned region comprises at least one tuft of the plurality of tufts, wherein each patterned region differs from at least one other patterned region in at least tuft color, wherein at least one patterned region forms a discontinuity in a color pattern of the tufted article along the first axis (Figures 4-9). However, BEARDEN fails to disclose a coating applied to one or more yarn stitches on at least a portion of the rear surface of the backing.
BEARDEN2 discloses a tufted article for defining a portion of a sports field wherein a polyurethane (col. 7, lines 20-24 and col. 8, lines 54-55) spray coating (34) is applied by a sprayer (62) to one or more yarn stitches (50; 40) on at least a portion of a rear surface (24) of a backing (20) in order to lock the yarn(s) to the backing (20) in a manner that greatly inhibits the unraveling of individual tufts (Figures 2 and 5-7). Note that BEARDEN2 discloses the [full] coating being applied to fewer than all of the yarn stitches on the rear surface of the backing in order to allow the tufted article to be adequately water permeable for drainage purposes (note the non-spray sides 54 of yarn 40 of backloops 50 and thus uncoated spots 48 on backing) (Figures 4-5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the tufted article of BEARDEN with a coating applied to one or more yarn stitches on at least a portion of the rear surface of the backing, in light of the teachings of BEARDEN2, in order to lock the yarn(s) to the backing in a manner that greatly inhibits the unraveling of individual tufts.
Regarding claims 5, BEARDEN discloses wherein the plurality of patterned regions (41, 42) further cooperate to form at least a portion of a symbol or a logo (Figures 4-9) (note Background and Summary sections too).
Regarding claim 6, BEARDEN discloses the tufted article comprising a width of fifteen feet (para 0027) and a length that is at least three times that of the width based on figure 1 thereof (please note the formula within para 0031 in relation to the length). Within claim 6, the applicant claims that the length of the tufted article extends an entire dimension of the field to which it is to be used (soccer, cricket, baseball, tennis, etc.); however, the applicant has provided no standard to define the claimed “dimension”. Even if the applicant claimed that the sports field is specific to a certain sport (note that BEARDEN does recite that the sports field can be a football field in para 0028), there is still no claimed limitation to define the dimension of the width or length (i.e., dimension) thereof. Additionally, the applicant has also not provided a standard to define what makes a sports field a sports field for a specific sport (is it the size, the markings thereon, or is just defined by what is being played thereon?). The tufted article of BEARDEN has a width of fifteen feet and a length of approximately 45 feet or more. This “tufted article” itself, or in combination with others, has sufficient size to allow someone or something to play a sport (such as soccer, cricket, baseball, tennis, football, etc.) thereon. Accordingly, the “tufted article” of BEARDEN can be considered a sports field (including one of a soccer field, a cricket field, a baseball field, a tennis court or a football field) wherein the length of the tufted article is sufficient to extend an entire width or length (i.e., dimension) of a playing area of the sports field. Note that even a miniature sports field is a sports field.
Regarding claims 28-29, the applicant is reciting claim limitations associated with product-by-process claim language because the “threshold” is based on a difference between the backing material before stitching and the backing material after stitching. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the final product itself. In this case, the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as the product of the prior art. Accordingly, claims 28-29 are unpatentable over BEARDEN in view of BEARDEN2. Is the claimed threshold tolerance based on the material of the backing and/or the material of the yarn.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of LINVILLE (US 2006/0039754 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, BEARDEN discloses a surface covering (of a preconceived design) including a plurality of tufted articles (pieces) defining at least a portion of a sports field (Background and Summary sections) (para 0026 and 0028) (note that one of the main differences between BEARDEN and the prior art discussed in the BACKGORUND section thereof is that BEARDEN allows the creation of much bigger pieces of the athletic field at a time which aids in better alignment of the tufted athletic field designs/logos when the pieces are attached together). BEARDEN discloses each tufted article having a length (length of backing including tufting thereon; para 0031) along a first axis and width (width of backing including tufting thereon; para 0027) along a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis, the first and second axes being perpendicular to a vertical axis, each tufted article further comprising: a backing (4) having a continuous structure and having a front surface (surface wherein yarns 41, 42 extend as shown in figures 4-9; inner surface of backing 4 when attached to tenter frame 5) and a rear surface (opposite surface of figures 4-9; outer surface of backing 4 when attached to tenter frame 5) opposite the front surface (Fig. 1); and a plurality of tufts (loop and/or cut pile tufts) extending along the vertical axis and from a front surface of the backing (4), wherein each tuft of the plurality of tufts (a) is formed from yarn (41, 42) stitched (i.e. tufted) to the backing (4) and (b) has a tuft height extending from the front surface of the backing to a distal end of the tuft (Figures 1 and 4-9), wherein the plurality of tufts is distributed among a plurality of patterned regions (as defined by 41, 42) of the tufted article, wherein each patterned region comprises at least one tuft of the plurality of tufts, wherein each patterned region differs from at least one other patterned region in at least tuft color, wherein at least one patterned region forms a discontinuity in a color pattern of the tufted article along the first axis (Figures 4-9). However, BEARDEN fails to disclose the plurality of tufted articles being arranged to define at least a portion of a field comprising: a first tufted article comprising a first side edge; and a second tufted article comprising a second side edge attachable to the first side edge to form at least a portion of the surface covering, wherein, when the second side edge is attached to the first side edge, the first side edge and the second side edge cooperatively define a continuous pattern extending from the first tufted article to the second tufted article.
LINVILLE discloses a plurality of tufted articles (16, 18, etc.) arranged to define at least a portion of a field wherein the plurality of tufted articles comprise: a first tufted article (16) comprising a first side edge (20); and a second tufted article (18) comprising a second side edge (22) attachable to the first side edge (20) to form at least a portion of the surface covering, wherein, when the second side edge (22) is attached to the first side edge (20), the first side edge (20) and the second side edge (22) cooperatively to define a continuous pattern extending from the first tufted article (16) to the second tufted article (18) (Figures 1-2 and 6-8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the plurality of tufted articles of BEARDEN being attached together in a continuous manner to define at least a portion of a field, in light of the teachings of LINVILLE, to provide a removable playing surface/field that is both uniform and secure.
Regarding claim 8, BEARDEN discloses each tufted article comprising a width of fifteen feet (para 0027) and a length that is at least three times that of the width based on figure 1 thereof (please note the formula within para 0031 in relation to the length). Within claim 8, the applicant claims that the length of each tufted article extends an entire dimension of the field to which it is to be used (soccer, cricket, baseball, tennis, etc.); however, the applicant has provided no standard to define the claimed “dimension”. Even if the applicant claimed that the sports field is specific to a certain sport (note that BEARDEN does recite that the sports field can be a football field in para 0028), there is still no claimed limitation to define the dimension of the width or length (i.e., dimension) thereof. Additionally, the applicant has also not provided a standard to define what makes a sports field a sports field for a specific sport (is it the size, the markings thereon, or is just defined by what is being played thereon?). The tufted article of BEARDEN has a width of fifteen feet and a length of approximately 45 feet or more. This “tufted article” itself, or in combination with others, has sufficient size to allow someone or something to play a sport (such as soccer, cricket, baseball, tennis, football, etc.) thereon. Accordingly, each “tufted article” of BEARDEN can be considered a sports field (including one of a soccer field, a cricket field, a baseball field, a tennis court or a football field) wherein the length of the tufted article is sufficient to extend an entire width or length (i.e., dimension) of a playing area of the sports field. Note that even a miniature sports field is a sports field.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of LINVILLE (US 2006/0039754 A1) and in further view of BEARDEN et al. (US 8,968,502 B1). Note that US 8,968,502 will herewithin be referred to as BEARDEN2.
BEARDEN in view of LINVILLE teaches a surface covering having a plurality of tufted article as discussed above. However, BEARDEN in view of LINVILLE fails to disclose each tufted article comprising a coating applied to one or more yarn stitches on at least a portion of the rear surface of the backing. BEARDEN2 discloses a tufted article for defining a portion of a sports field wherein a polyurethane (col. 7, lines 20-24 and col. 8, lines 54-55) spray coating (34) is applied by a sprayer (62) to one or more yarn stitches (50; 40) on at least a portion of a rear surface (24) of a backing (20) in order to lock the yarn(s) to the backing (20) in a manner that greatly inhibits the unraveling of individual tufts (Figures 2 and 5-7). Note that BEARDEN2 discloses the [full] coating being applied to fewer than all of the yarn stitches on the rear surface of the backing in order to allow the tufted article to be adequately water permeable for drainage purposes (note the non-spray sides 54 of yarn 40 of backloops 50 and thus uncoated spots 48 on backing) (Figures 4-5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided each tufted article of BEARDEN in view of LINVILLE with a coating applied to one or more yarn stitches on at least a portion of the rear surface of the backing, in light of the teachings of BEARDEN2, in order to lock the yarn(s) to the backing in a manner that greatly inhibits the unraveling of individual tufts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that WO 2009/056284 also discloses spraying a polyurethane coating onto the rear surface of a tufted artificial turf article.
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 NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732