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
The amendment filed July 31st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 25 have been amended. Claims 1-39 remain pending.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-11, 25-28, and 30-34 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.
The term “about” in claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 25-28, 30 and 32-34 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” 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.
The term “low heat” in claims 8 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claims, 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.
The term “high airflow volume” in claims 8 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claims, 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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980).
Regarding claim 1, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4) including a backing and fiber layer and infill material (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-7), the system comprising:
screening equipment (Fig. 2 phase ‘D’) accepting shredded pieces of removed artificial turf (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-3) including the backing and fiber layer and the infill material in a first shredded product minus size (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4), the screening equipment operable in a single stage to separate the infill material from the backing and fiber layer and output the separated infill material in a second product minus size including a mix of sand and crumb rubber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4); and
infill screening equipment (Fig. 2 phase ‘E’) accepting the mix of sand and crumb rubber from the single stage in the second product minus size (Paragraph 0039 line 1-Paragraph 0040 line 6) and operable to separate the mix of sand and crumb rubber into clean crumb rubber and clean sand (Paragraph 0040 lines 3-5).
Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching screening equipment which is trommel screening equipment.
Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2) comprising trommel screening equipment (Paragraph 0022 lines 11-14).
Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980) explains that the screen may either be a trommel screen, a flip flop screen, or a deck screen (Paragraph 0022 lines 11-14), and states that the screen extracts a high percentage of synthetic fibers from the mixture (Paragraph 0022 lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include screening equipment which is trommel screening equipment as taught by Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980) in order to extract a high percentage of fiber from the infill material.
Regarding claim 2, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second product minus size is about 21 times to about 31 times less than the first minus product size (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second product minus size is about 67 times less than the first minus product size (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first product minus size is about 8 inches (203mm) (Paragraph 0038 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 5, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the second product minus size is about 3mm (Paragraph 0039 1-4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 6, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the infill screening equipment includes a direct excitation screener (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-2) operable to screen the mix of sand and crumb rubber to a particle size to separate the crumb rubber and sand under (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-5) conditions wherein the shredded pieces of removed artificial turf are dry and the crumb rubber is not bonded to the sand (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-9).
Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching a 1mm particle size, and instead teaches a 0.8mm particle size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include a direct excitation screener operable to screen the mix of sand and crumb rubber to a 1mm particle size in order to provide a screen which best separates the crumb rubber from the sand, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980), legal precedent and further in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542).
Regarding claim 7, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 6, wherein the infill screening equipment further includes a density table operable to separate particles having a minus product size of less than about 0.5mm.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein the infill screening equipment further includes a density table (Paragraph 0043 lines 4-29, Paragraph 0044 lines 6-23) operable to separate particles having a minus product size of less than about 0.5mm (Paragraph 0044 lines 6-23).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the initially separated sand infill enters a process to remove any remaining rubber and the initially separated rubber infill enters a process to remove any remaining sand, wherein the lighter rubber stays in the upper strata and the heavier sand settles as it travels along the inclined deck (Paragraph 0043 lines 1-14, 25-29). Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) further explains that sand and rubber can degrade or break down over time, and may be undesirably small such that they need to be separated and removed, wherein the material output from the density separation is run through a screen and separated to a desired minimum size to remove sand or rubber which is too small for reuse (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the infill screening equipment further includes a density table operable to separate particles having a minus product size of less than about 0.5mm as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to further separate any remaining material not previously separated, and remove degraded infill material which is too small for reuse.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980) and further in view of Ueda et al. (EP 2186942).
Regarding claim 8, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the infill screening equipment applies low heat and high airflow volume to enhance a separation of the crumb rubber and sand.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the infill screening equipment (Fig. 4 #33) applies low heat and high airflow volume to enhance a separation of the crumb rubber and sand (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the infill screening equipment applies low heat and high airflow volume to enhance a separation of the crumb rubber and sand as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) in order to reduce the moisture content of the material and prevent agglomeration of the material.
Regarding claim 9, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 8, wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 140° to about 180°F.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 140° to about 180°F (Paragraph 0081 lines 10-14).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) states that the electric heater has a heating unit for heating air and a fan for blowing the heated air having a specified temperature to the segregator in order to efficiently dry the material (Paragraph 0083 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 140° to about 180°F as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) in order to reduce the moisture content of the material and prevent agglomeration of the material, and further in order to efficiently dry the material.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980), Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 10, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 8, wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 110° to about 120°F.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the applied low heat is in a range (Paragraph 0081 lines 10-14).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) states that the electric heater has a heating unit for heating air and a fan for blowing the heated air having a specified temperature to the segregator in order to efficiently dry the material (Paragraph 0083 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 110° to about 120°F in order to provide air having a temperature to efficiently dry the material as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 8, wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 85° to about 95°F.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the applied low heat is in a range (Paragraph 0081 lines 10-14).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) states that the electric heater has a heating unit for heating air and a fan for blowing the heated air having a specified temperature to the segregator in order to efficiently dry the material (Paragraph 0083 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 85° to about 95°F in order to provide air having a temperature to efficiently dry the material as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980) and further in view of Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830).
Regarding claim 12, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one air knife operable to remove detached fibers from the mix of crumb rubber and sand.
Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), further comprising at least one air knife (Fig. 6 #600) operable to remove detached fibers from the mix of crumb rubber and sand (Paragraph 0029 lines 4-21).
Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830) explains that the remaining fine material and fiber may be separated from the infill material according to density by an air knife (Paragraph 0029 lines 4-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include at least one air knife operable to remove detached fibers from the mix of crumb rubber and sand as taught by Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830) in order to separate fibers and dust from the recycled infill material.
Claims 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980) and further in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542).
Regarding claim 13, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, wherein the system is a mobile system.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein the system is a mobile system (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-16).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the mobile system can be readily moved from location to location in order to process for reuse used infill in relatively close proximity to the location of the turf from which the infill was removed (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-7), and explains that the infill does not need to be trucked a significant distance on public roadways between the turf field and the mobile system (Paragraph 0039 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the system is a mobile system as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to process infill material in close proximity to the location from which it was removed, eliminating the need to truck the infill material a significant distance.
Regarding claim 14, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 13, wherein the mobile system includes an expandable trailer apparatus.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein the mobile system (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-16) includes an expandable trailer apparatus (Fig. 1 #16, Paragraph 0036 lines 1-6).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the mobile system can be readily moved from location to location in order to process for reuse used infill in relatively close proximity to the location of the turf from which the infill was removed (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-7), and explains that the infill does not need to be trucked a significant distance on public roadways between the turf field and the mobile system (Paragraph 0039 lines 5-10). Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) states that the trailer includes a conventional outer shell formed of a front wall, left side wall, processing chamber swing doors, a right side wall, and rear swinging doors, and a detachable ramp may be used to access processing chamber through the doors (Paragraph 0036 liens 1-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the mobile system includes an expandable trailer apparatus as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to process infill material in close proximity to the location from which it was removed, eliminating the need to truck the infill material a significant distance.
Regarding claim 17, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, further comprising packaging equipment to collect the clean crumb rubber and clean sand for reuse with a replacement carpet backing to install a replacement artificial turf.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), further comprising packaging equipment (Fig. 3 #80) to collect the clean crumb rubber and clean sand for reuse with a replacement carpet backing to install a replacement artificial turf (Fig. 3 #81, Paragraph 0050 lines 1-15).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the processed infill is bagged for reuse using a discharger configured to direct the processed infill into super sacks that can be unloaded from the trailer, and the infill material may be reapplied to the same field or transported to another location for incorporation into a different field (Paragraph 0050 lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include packaging equipment to collect the clean crumb rubber and clean sand for reuse with a replacement carpet backing to install a replacement artificial turf as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to provide sacks of processed material which may be reapplied to the same field or transported to another location for use in a different field.
Regarding claim 18, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the system of claim 1, further comprising vacuum equipment operating upon the mix of crumb rubber and sand.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches a material reclamation system for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), further comprising vacuum equipment operating upon the mix of crumb rubber and sand (Paragraph 0008 lines 14-19).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542 explains that the conveyance system is configured to convey the used infill material from the intake to the outtake of the system, and the conveyance system may comprise a vacuum tube (Paragraph 0008 lines 14-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include vacuum equipment operating upon the mix of crumb rubber and sand as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to convey the infill material through the system.
Claims 19-20, 24-28 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542).
Regarding claim 19, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), the method implemented with a recycling system, the artificial turf including a backing fiber and fiber layer with infill material (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-7), wherein the method comprises:
operating the recycling system at the processing site to:
accept shredded pieces of artificial turf (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-3) including the backing fiber and fiber layer with infill material in a first shredded minus product size (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4);
screen the first shredded minus product size to completely separate the infill material from the backing and fiber layer in a single stage (Fig. 2 phase ‘D’) to output the separated infill material in a second product minus size including a mix of sand and crumb rubber (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4); and
screening the mix of sand and crumb rubber (Fig. 2 phase ‘E’) from the single stage to separate the mix of sand and crumb rubber into clean crumb rubber and clean sand (Paragraph 0040 lines 3-6).
Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method implemented with a mobile recycling system, wherein the method comprises:
transporting the mobile recycling system to a processing site which is selected to reduce a transport distance of artificial turf materials from an artificial turf site to the processing site; and
operating the mobile recycling system at the processing site.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), the method implemented with a mobile recycling system (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-16), wherein the method comprises:
transporting the mobile recycling system to a processing site which is selected to reduce a transport distance of artificial turf materials from an artificial turf site to the processing site (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-5); and
operating the mobile recycling system at the processing site (Paragraph 0040 lines 1-10).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the mobile system can be readily moved from location to location in order to process for reuse used infill in relatively close proximity to the location of the turf from which the infill was removed (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-7), and explains that the infill does not need to be trucked a significant distance on public roadways between the turf field and the mobile system (Paragraph 0039 lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include the method implemented with a mobile recycling system, wherein the method comprises: transporting the mobile recycling system to a processing site which is selected to reduce a transport distance of artificial turf materials from an artificial turf site to the processing site; and operating the mobile recycling system at the processing site as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to process infill material in close proximity to the location from which it was removed, eliminating the need to truck the infill material a significant distance.
Regarding claim 20, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 19, wherein the mobile recycling system includes at least one trailer apparatus configurable between a compact transport configuration and an operational configuration, the method further comprising: locating the at least one trailer apparatus on a processing site while in the compact transport configuration; and expanding the at least one trailer apparatus from the compact transport configuration at the processing site.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein the mobile recycling system includes at least one trailer apparatus (Fig. 1 #16) configurable between a compact transport configuration (Fig. 6 see compact configuration of #16) and an operational configuration (Fig. 3 see operational configuration of #16), the method further comprising:
locating the at least one trailer apparatus on a processing site while in the compact transport configuration (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-10); and
expanding the at least one trailer apparatus from the compact transport configuration at the processing site (Paragraph 0036 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0041 lines 1-7).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the mobile system can be readily moved from location to location in order to process for reuse used infill in relatively close proximity to the location of the turf from which the infill was removed (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-7), and explains that the infill does not need to be trucked a significant distance on public roadways between the turf field and the mobile system (Paragraph 0039 lines 5-10). Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) states that the trailer includes a conventional outer shell formed of a front wall, left side wall, processing chamber swing doors, a right side wall, and rear swinging doors, and a detachable ramp may be used to access processing chamber through the doors (Paragraph 0036 liens 1-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the mobile recycling system includes at least one trailer apparatus configurable between a compact transport configuration and an operational configuration, the method further comprising: locating the at least one trailer apparatus on a processing site while in the compact transport configuration; and expanding the at least one trailer apparatus from the compact transport configuration at the processing site as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to process infill material in close proximity to the location from which it was removed, eliminating the need to truck the infill material a significant distance.
Regarding claim 24, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 19, further comprising packaging the clean crumb rubber and clean sand for reuse with a replacement carpet backing to install a replacement artificial turf.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), further comprising packaging (Fig. 3 #80) the clean crumb rubber and clean sand for reuse with a replacement carpet backing to install a replacement artificial turf (Fig. 3 #81, Paragraph 0050 lines 1-15).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the processed infill is bagged for reuse using a discharger configured to direct the processed infill into super sacks that can be unloaded from the trailer, and the infill material may be reapplied to the same field or transported to another location for incorporation into a different field (Paragraph 0050 lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include packaging the clean crumb rubber and clean sand for reuse with a replacement carpet backing to install a replacement artificial turf as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to provide sacks of processed material which may be reapplied to the same field or transported to another location for use in a different field.
Regarding claim 25, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the second product minus size is about 21 times to about 31 times less than the first minus product size (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 26, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the second product minus size is about 67 times less than the first minus product size (Paragraph 0029 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0039 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 27, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the first product minus size is about 8 inches (203mm) (Paragraph 0038 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 28, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the second product minus size is about 3mm (Paragraph 0039 1-4).
Regarding claim 39, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 19, further comprising vacuuming the mix of crumb rubber and sand.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), further comprising vacuuming the mix of crumb rubber and sand (Paragraph 0008 lines 14-19).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542 explains that the conveyance system is configured to convey the used infill material from the intake to the outtake of the system, and the conveyance system may comprise a vacuum tube (Paragraph 0008 lines 14-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include vacuuming the mix of crumb rubber and sand as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to convey the infill material through the system.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of legal precedent and further in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542).
Regarding claim 29, Fazzini (EP 2096211) teaches the method of claim 19, wherein screening the mix of sand and crumb rubber from the single stage to separate the mix of sand and crumb rubber into clean crumb rubber and clean sand comprises screening the mix of sand and crumb rubber with a direct excitation screener (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-2) to a particle size to separate the crumb rubber and sand under conditions (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-5) wherein the shredded material is dry and the crumb rubber material is not bonded to the sand (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-9).
Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching a 1mm particle size, and instead teaches a 0.8mm particle size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include screening the mix of sand and crumb rubber with a direct excitation screener to a 1mm particle size in order to provide a screen which best separates the crumb rubber from the sand, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 30, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 29, wherein screening the mix of sand and crumb rubber from the single stage to separate the mix of sand and crumb rubber into clean crumb rubber and clean sand further comprises operating at least one density table to separate particles having a minus product size of less than about 0.5mm.
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein screening the mix of sand and crumb rubber from the single stage to separate the mix of sand and crumb rubber into clean crumb rubber and clean sand (Fig. 3 #63, 64 65) further comprises operating at least one density table (Paragraph 0043 lines 4-29, Paragraph 0044 lines 6-23) to separate particles having a minus product size of less than about 0.5mm (Paragraph 0044 lines 6-23).
Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) explains that the initially separated sand infill enters a process to remove any remaining rubber and the initially separated rubber infill enters a process to remove any remaining sand, wherein the lighter rubber stays in the upper strata and the heavier sand settles as it travels along the inclined deck (Paragraph 0043 lines 1-14, 25-29). Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) further explains that sand and rubber can degrade or break down over time, and may be undesirably small such that they need to be separated and removed, wherein the material output from the density separation is run through a screen and separated to a desired minimum size to remove sand or rubber which is too small for reuse (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein screening the mix of sand and crumb rubber from the single stage to separate the mix of sand and crumb rubber into clean crumb rubber and clean sand further comprises operating at least one density table to separate particles having a minus product size of less than about 0.5mm as taught by Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) in order to further separate any remaining material not previously separated, and remove degraded infill material which is too small for reuse.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) and further in view of Ueda et al. (EP 2186942).
Regarding claim 31, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 19, further comprising applying low heat and high airflow volume to the mix of sand and crumb rubber to enhance a separation of the rubber crumb and sand.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), further comprising applying low heat and high airflow volume to the mix of sand and crumb rubber to enhance a separation of the rubber crumb and sand (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include further comprising applying low heat and high airflow volume to the mix of sand and crumb rubber to enhance a separation of the rubber crumb and sand as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) in order to reduce the moisture content of the material and prevent agglomeration of the material.
Regarding claim 32, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 31, wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 140° to about 180°F.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 140° to about 180°F (Paragraph 0081 lines 10-14).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) states that the electric heater has a heating unit for heating air and a fan for blowing the heated air having a specified temperature to the segregator in order to efficiently dry the material (Paragraph 0083 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 140° to about 180°F as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) in order to reduce the moisture content of the material and prevent agglomeration of the material, and further in order to efficiently dry the material.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542), Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 33, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 31, wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 110° to about 120°F.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the applied low heat is in a range (Paragraph 0081 lines 10-14).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) states that the electric heater has a heating unit for heating air and a fan for blowing the heated air having a specified temperature to the segregator in order to efficiently dry the material (Paragraph 0083 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 110° to about 120°F in order to provide air having a temperature to efficiently dry the material as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 34, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 31, wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 85° to about 95°F.
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the applied low heat is in a range (Paragraph 0081 lines 10-14).
Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) explains that the moisture content contained in the shredded pieces and the filler can be effectively reduced by airflow produced by rotation blades and by the supply of heated air to the separator (Paragraph 0080 lines 1-9). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) additionally explains that a lower moisture content of the filler can prevent agglomeration of the filler, therefore providing material with satisfactory workability (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-7). Ueda et al. (EP 2186942) states that the electric heater has a heating unit for heating air and a fan for blowing the heated air having a specified temperature to the segregator in order to efficiently dry the material (Paragraph 0083 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the applied low heat is in a range of about 85° to about 95°F in order to provide air having a temperature to efficiently dry the material as taught by Ueda et al. (EP 2186942), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) and further in view of Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830).
Regarding claim 35, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 19, the mobile recycling system including at least one air knife, the method further comprising operating the at least one air knife to remove detached fibers from the mix of rubber and sand.
Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), the mobile recycling system including at least one air knife (Fig. 6 #600) the method further comprising operating the at least one air knife to remove detached fibers from the mix of rubber and sand (Paragraph 0029 lines 4-21).
Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830) explains that the remaining fine material and fiber may be separated from the infill material according to density by an air knife (Paragraph 0029 lines 4-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include the mobile recycling system including at least one air knife, the method further comprising operating the at least one air knife to remove detached fibers from the mix of rubber and sand as taught by Edwards et al. (US 2015/0209830) in order to separate fibers and dust from the recycled infill material.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazzini (EP 2096211) in view of Nicholls et al. (US 2015/0224542) and further in view of Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787).
Regarding claim 36, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 19, further comprising magnetizing at least one of the shredded pieces of artificial turf and the separated mix of sand and crumb rubber to remove metal material therefrom.
Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), further comprising magnetizing at least one of the shredded pieces of artificial turf and the separated mix of sand and crumb rubber to remove metal material therefrom (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-7).
Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) explains that magnetic separators can be employed to extract the maximum amount of undesirable materials from plastic-rich mixtures (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include magnetizing at least one of the shredded pieces of artificial turf and the separated mix of sand and crumb rubber to remove metal material therefrom as taught by Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) in order to extract undesirable metal material from the mix of sand and crumb rubber.
Regarding claim 37, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 36, wherein the mobile recycling system includes a conveyor belt including a roller magnet, the roller magnet maintaining metal material on the conveyor belt while sand and rubber crumb particles fall from the conveyor belt.
Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein the mobile recycling system includes a conveyor belt (Fig. 3 #32) including a roller magnet (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-7, Fig. 3 #36), the roller magnet maintaining metal material on the conveyor belt (Fig. 3 #24 is maintained on #32) while sand and rubber crumb particles fall from the conveyor belt (Fig. 3 #26 fall from #32).
Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) explains that magnetic separators can be employed to extract the maximum amount of undesirable materials from plastic-rich mixtures (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-7). Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) explains that magnetic materials adhere to the belt until after the belt passes the roller magnet, and non-magnetic materials do not adhere to the belt while the belt is close to the roller magnet, thus these materials can travel in a different direction (Paragraph 0076 lines 4-20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include wherein the mobile recycling system includes a conveyor belt including a roller magnet, the roller magnet maintaining metal material on the conveyor belt while sand and rubber crumb particles fall from the conveyor belt as taught by Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) in order to extract undesirable metal material from the mix of sand and crumb rubber.
Regarding claim 38, Fazzini (EP 2096211) lacks teaching the method of claim 36, wherein the mobile equipment includes a conveyor belt and an overhead magnet to remove metal material on the conveyor belt.
Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) teaches an infill material reclamation method for artificial turf (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein the mobile equipment includes a conveyor belt and an overhead magnet to remove metal material on the conveyor belt (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3).
Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) explains that magnetic separators can be employed to extract the maximum amount of undesirable materials from plastic-rich mixtures (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-7). Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) explains that the system may use an in-line belt or a cross belt magnet to perform continuous high strength magnetic separation (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fazzini (EP 2096211) to include , wherein the mobile equipment includes a conveyor belt and an overhead magnet to remove metal material on the conveyor belt as taught by Riise et al. (US 2012/0067787) in order to extract undesirable metal material from the mix of sand and crumb rubber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 21-23 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 15 recites “wherein the expandable trailer apparatus includes at least one machine that is rotatably mounted on the expandable trailer apparatus and is rotatably positionable between a transport position and an operating position”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 14, was not seen in the searched prior art.
Claim 21 is allowable for the same reason as claim 15.
Claims 16 and 22-23 are allowable as they are dependent upon claims 15 and 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the use of relative terminology in the claims is definite, the Examiner would like to clarify that in the claim language such as “about 21 times to about 31 times less than”, it is unclear if “about 21 times” includes 18 times, 20.5 times, 20.95 times, etc. This question is raised throughout the claims when the word “about” is used. Further, the specification describes “low heat” to include a temperature such as 110-120 degrees Fahrenheit, and also stating that 85-95 degrees Fahrenheit may be “sufficiently warm”, therefore it is unclear if “low heat” includes temperatures below 110 degrees. The specification provides an example of a high airflow volume of 5000 cubic feet per minute in a contemplated example, but does not provide any further guidance on what constitutes a high airflow volume.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Fazzini fails to teach shredded pieces of removed artificial turf, the Examiner would like to clarify that Fanzzini describes the grinding phase converting turf into pieces of about 100 x 300 mm, and states that the grinding step may be carried out by a single-shaft grainer and/or a double shaft crusher, wherein a single shaft grainer is a well-known type of shredder machine. Therefore, Fazzini teaches the shredded pieces of artificial turf as claimed.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Fanzzini fails to teach “clean crumb rubber and clean sand”, the Examiner would like to clarify that Fanzzini states that phase E produces products that make up the infill (sand and rubber), which can be recycled (see Paragraph 0044), and Figure 2 shows phase E producing raw and semifinished products for further use (see Fig. 2). The instant specification states that the clean materials may be up to 99% by weight of only sand or only rubber that may perform satisfactorily for reuse (see Paragraph 0106), wherein Fanzzini teaches raw and semifinished products of only sand and only rubber which may perform satisfactorily for reuse.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Fanzzini fails to teach the product minus size of about 8 inches, the Examiner would like to clarify that 11.8 inches is being considered “about 8 inches”, since the relative term “about” has not been defined as explained previously.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Fanzzini fails to teach the product minus size of about 3 mm, the Examiner would like to clarify that 4/5 mm is being considered “about 3 mm”, since the relative term “about” has not been defined as explained previously.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Fanzzini fails to teach a direct excitation screener operable to screen the mix of sand and crumb rubber to a 1mm particle size under conditions wherein the shredded pieces of removed artificial turf are dry and the crumb rubber is not bonded to the sand as claimed, the Examiner would like to clarify that Fanzzini teaches a centrifugal, gyratory screen and therefore teaches a direct excitation screener, and further Fanzzini teaches that this screen may be a .8 mm mesh to separate rubber and sand (see Paragraph 0042). Therefore, Fanzzini teaches the direct excitation screener as claimed, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the mesh size in order to produce a particular output.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wilson et al. (US 2020/0206980).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 15-16 and 21-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights