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 corresponding arguments, filed 7/28/2026, have been reviewed and considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10-11 and 21 have been amended, claims 5, 7-9, 12-14 and 23 have been canceled, and claims 27-34 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 21-22 and 24-34 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 is considered sufficient in overcoming the prior art rejection(s) of the previous Office Action. However, applicant’s amendment and corresponding arguments relating to independent claim 21 are not persuasive in overcoming the combination of BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) and WEINER et al. (US 2014/0272260 A1). Specifically, the applicant argues that WEINER fails to disclose “a first tuft sequence extending along the first axis, and a second tuft sequence extending along a third axis that is at an oblique angle with respect to the first axis” because the diagonal pattern thereof is over-tufting on an existing carpet. The examiner respectively disagrees. Firstly, note that the applicant’s claims are directed at a tufted article, not a tufting process. Therefore, the fact that the diagonal tufted pattern 135 of WEINER is performed (i.e., over-tufting) on the primary tufted pattern 102 is irrelevant. Even though the main reference of BEARDEN discloses a first tuft sequence extending along the first axis as explained within the prior art rejection(s), note that the primary tufted pattern (102; para 0038) of WEINER also extends along the machine direction and therefore discloses a plurality of tuft sequences extending along the first axis (Fig. 7). Furthermore, the diagonal tufted pattern (135) of WEINER is disclosing a plurality of tuft sequences extending (each line) along a third axis that is at an oblique (acute) angle with respect to the first axis (Fig. 7). Accordingly, the combination of BEARDEN and WEINER is deemed proper and still stands. This Office Action is a Final Rejection.
Specification and Drawings
The amendment filed 7/28/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In response to the drawing objection of previous Office Action, the applicant amended figure 2A and paragraph 0042 to include reference characters (109a, 109b, 109c) directed at the claimed tuft sequences and corresponding directions associated therewith (note that tuft sequences 109a, 109b and 109c are each pointing to a directional line in relation to a respective patterned region 110 as shown in figure 2A) (additionally, note axes 104, 105, 106 and angles 107, 111 which aid in providing direction to the tuft sequences). The applicant’s originally filed disclosure did not associate the patterned regions of figure 2A with the tuft sequences. Especially, not directions associated therewith. Accordingly, the applicant’s amendments to figure 2A and paragraph 0042 are considered containing new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Within each of claims 27, 29 and 30, the applicant recites that “the first subset of the plurality of regions differs from the second subset of the plurality of regions in at least two of yarn type, yarn density, or yarn height”. Applicant’s specification supports that the first and second subsets can differ “in at least one of color, pile height, yarn type, or yarn density” (para 0006, 0041, 0043, etc.); however, the applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not support the applicant further limiting this statement as recited above. Note that the originally filed disclosure does not support the first and second subareas differing in color (base claim) and at least two of yarn type, yarn density and yarn height.
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 24, 25, 27, 29 and 30 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.
Claim 24 is considered indefinite because the claim is dependent from claim 23 which has been cancelled. Is claim 24 meant to be dependent from claim 21? For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 24 will be considered dependent from claim 21.
Claims 27, 29 and 30 are considered indefinite because it is unclear how to interpret the recitation that “the first subset of the plurality of regions differs from the second subset of the plurality of regions in at least two of yarn type, yarn density, or yarn height” considering this statement is new matter as discussed within the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above.
All remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent form a rejected base claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1).
Regarding claim 31, BEARDEN discloses a tufted article for a portion of a field (Background and Summary sections) (para 0026 and 0028; “football field”) (note that one of the main differences between BEARDEN and the prior art discussed in the BACKGROUND 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), produced by a tufting machine, the tufted article having a length (length of backing including tufting thereon; para 0031) along a first longitudinal axis and a width (width of backing including tufting thereon; para 0027) along a second longitudinal axis that is perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis, wherein the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis are perpendicular to a vertical axis (direction of tufts), the tufted article comprising: a backing (4) having a continuous structure (Fig. 1); and a plurality of regions, wherein each region comprises a plurality of tufts of yarn (cut pile tufts) extending through at least a portion of the backing (4) along the vertical axis, and wherein the plurality of regions form a color pattern (representing grass of a sports field), the plurality of regions (Fig. 9) comprises a first region having a first tuft sequence (note one of the tufting rows of figure 9) and a second region having a second tuft sequence (note an adjacent tufting row of figure 9), wherein the first tuft sequence and the second tuft sequence are spaced from each other along at least the second longitudinal axis (note the lateral spacing between each of the rows) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 32, BEARDEN discloses wherein a first subset of regions (41) and a second subset of regions (42) of the plurality of regions form a plurality of alternating discontinuities in the color pattern (different colors) along at least both the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis (Figures 4-9).
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) 1-2, 6, 11 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of PREVOST et al. (US 2002/0081399 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 11 and 33, BEARDEN discloses a tufted article for a portion of a field (Background and Summary sections) (para 0026 and 0028; “football field”) (note that one of the main differences between BEARDEN and the prior art discussed in the BACKGROUND 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), produced by a tufting machine, the tufted article having a length (length of backing including tufting thereon; para 0031) along a first longitudinal axis and a width (width of backing including tufting thereon; para 0027) along a second longitudinal axis that is perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis, wherein the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis are perpendicular to a vertical axis (direction of tufts), the tufted article comprising: a backing (4) having a continuous structure (Fig. 1); and a plurality of regions, wherein each region comprises a plurality of tufts of yarn (cut pile tufts) extending through at least a portion of the backing (4) along the vertical axis, and the plurality of regions form a visual pattern (representing grass of a sports field), wherein a first subset of regions (41) and a second subset of regions (42) of the plurality of regions form a plurality of alternating discontinuities in the visual pattern (different colors for each subset) along at least both the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis (Figures 4-9). However, BEARDEN fails to disclose the first and second subsets differing in at least one of yarn type or yarn density [in addition to color].
PREVOST discloses a tufted article comprising a plurality of regions wherein a first subset of the plurality of regions and a second subset of the plurality of regions differ in yarn density in order to improve appearance and/or to provide a different feel to a person thereon (note the difference between sections 38a, 38b and/or 42a, 42b; figures 3-4) (also note the difference in the grouping of panels, specifically 34; figures 5a-5b) (para 0037, 0038 and 0045). 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 first and second subsets of BEARDEN with differing yarn densities, in light of the teachings of PREVOST, in order to improve appearance and/or to provide a different feel to a person thereon.
Regarding claims 6, BEARDEN discloses wherein the color pattern formed by the plurality of regions comprise a graphical pattern (para 0026, Background section and Summary section). Note that BEARDEN discloses a surface covering including a plurality of tufted articles wherein the tufted articles are arranged to define at least a portion of a football field having graphics, as defined by different colored tufts, as discussed within BEARDEN. However, besides logos, BEARDEN is silent regarding what the graphics represent. It is considered old and known in the art for football fields to have graphics in the form of shapes including a combination of lines, markers and symbols to aid in properly playing the game of football. 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 graphics of BEARDEN in view of PREVOST with graphics in the form of shapes including a combination of lines, markers and symbols because such is considered old and known in the art in order to aid in properly playing the game of football.
Regarding claim 34, note that the tufted article being used for a specific field is considered purely functional language containing no further limiting structure. Accordingly, since the tufted article of BEARDEN contains all the structure as claimed by the applicant, the tufted article of BEARDEN is considered fully capable of being used for a portion of an airport runway, a park or a landfill cover. Additionally, note that a football field is fully capable of functioning as an airport runway and/or park as is.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of PREVOST et al. (US 2002/0081399 A1) and in further view of WEINER et al. (US 2014/0272260 A1).
BEARDEN in view of PREVOST teaches a tufted article for a portion of a field as discussed above. Note that BEARDEN discloses the plurality of regions comprising a first tuft sequence (rows of 41, 42) extending along the first longitudinal axis (Figures 4-9). However, BEARDEN in view of PREVOST fails to disclose the plurality of regions comprising a second tuft sequence extending along a third longitudinal axis that is at an acute angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis. WEINER discloses a tufted article (100) with a plurality of regions comprising a first tuft sequence (primary tuft pattern 102) extending along the first longitudinal axis, and a second tuft sequence (diagonal tuft pattern 135) extending along a third longitudinal axis that is at an acute angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis in order to create a more intricate pattern as desired by a user while adding strength to the tufted article (Fig. 7). 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 regions of the tufted article of BEARDEN in view of PREVOST with a second tuft sequence extending along a third longitudinal axis that is at an acute angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis, in light of the teachings of WEINER, in order to create a more intricate pattern as desired by a user while adding strength to the tufted article. Note that the first subset of regions and the second subset of regions of the plurality of regions of BEARDEN in view of PREVOST and in further view of WEINER would comprise a third plurality of alternating discontinuities in the color/visual pattern along the third longitudinal axis based on the color/visual pattern of the field as disclosed by BEARDEN and since WEINER discloses the secondary/diagonal pattern(s) (i.e. second tuft sequence) being of varying tuft levels and varying colors (para 0038).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of PREVOST et al. (US 2002/0081399 A1) and in further view of BAIR (US 5,885,168).
BEARDEN in view of PREVOST teaches the tufted article wherein the first and second subsets of the plurality of regions differ from one another in both color and density. However, BEARDEN in view of PREVOST fails to teach the first and second subsets also differing in one of yarn type and yarn height. BAIR discloses a tufted article (10) comprising a plurality of regions (22, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 42, etc.) with first and second subsets (32, 34 or any of the regions as noted above) thereof differing in both yarn density and yarn height in order to simulate different grass surfaces (Figures 1-15). 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 first and second subareas of the plurality of regions of BEARDEN in view of PREVOST with different yarn heights, in light of the teachings of BAIR, in order to simulate different grass surfaces.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of PREVOST et al. (US 2002/0081399 A1) in further view of WEINER et al. (US 2014/0272260 A1) and in further view of BAIR (US 5,885,168).
The combination of BEARDEN, PREVOST and WEINER teaches the tufted article wherein the first and second subsets of the plurality of regions differ from one another in both color and density. However, the combination of references fails to teach the first and second subsets also differing in one of yarn type and yarn height. BAIR discloses a tufted article (10) comprising a plurality of regions (22, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 42, etc.) with first and second subsets (32, 34 or any of the regions as noted above) thereof differ in both yarn density and yarn height in order to simulate different grass surfaces (Figures 1-15). 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 first and second subareas of the plurality of regions of BEARDEN in view of PREVOST and in further view of WEINER with different yarn heights, in light of the teachings of BAIR, in order to simulate different grass surfaces.
Claim(s) 21-22 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of WEINER et al. (US 2014/0272260 A1).
BEARDEN discloses a tufted article for a portion of a field as discussed above. Note that BEARDEN discloses the plurality of regions comprising a first tuft sequence (rows of 41, 42) extending along the first longitudinal axis (Figures 4-9). However, BEARDEN fails to disclose the plurality of regions comprising a second tuft sequence extending along a third longitudinal axis that is at an acute angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis. WEINER discloses a tufted article (100) with a plurality of regions comprising a first tuft sequence (primary tuft pattern 102) extending along the first longitudinal axis, and a second tuft sequence (diagonal tuft pattern 135) extending along a third longitudinal axis that is at an acute angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis in order to create a more intricate pattern as desired by a user while adding strength to the tufted article (Fig. 7). 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 regions of the tufted article of BEARDEN with a second tuft sequence extending along a third longitudinal axis that is at an acute angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis, in light of the teachings of WEINER, in order to create a more intricate pattern as desired by a user while adding strength to the tufted article. Note that the first subset of regions and the second subset of regions of the plurality of regions of BEARDEN in view of WEINER would comprise a third plurality of alternating discontinuities in the color/visual pattern along the third longitudinal axis based on the color/visual pattern of the field as disclosed by BEARDEN and since WEINER discloses the secondary/diagonal pattern(s) (i.e. second tuft sequence) being of varying tuft levels and varying colors (para 0038).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEARDEN (US 2012/0222606 A1) in view of WEINER et al. (US 2014/0272260 A1) and in further view of BAIR (US 5,885,168).
BEARDEN in view of WEINER teaches the tufted article wherein the first and second subsets of the plurality of regions differ from one another in color. However, BEARDEN in view of WEINER fails to teach the first and second subsets also differing in at least two of yarn type, yarn density, or yarn height. BAIR discloses a tufted article (10) comprising a plurality of regions (22, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 42, etc.) with first and second subsets (32, 34 or any of the regions as noted above) that differ in both yarn density and yarn height in order to simulate different grass surfaces (Figures 1-15). 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 first and second subareas of the plurality of regions of BEARDEN in view of WEINER with different yarn heights and different yarn densities, in light of the teachings of BAIR, in order to simulate different grass surfaces. For future reference, also note PREVOST et al. (US 2002/0081399 A1) which further discloses different subsets of a plurality of regions differing in yarn density.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights