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 .
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, 4, 8-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajima et al. (US 2013/005505 in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2001/0018375) and Takemura et al. (JP 09-51965 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sajima et al. discloses a golf ball having a core 4 and an envelope layer 8. The core is formed of a rubber composition containing a base rubber and an α, ß-unsaturated metal carboxylate (See Paragraph 0078). The envelope layer encases the core and is formed of a thermoplastic resin (See Paragraph 0124). The thermoplastic resin includes ionomer resin wherein the ionomer resin includes α, ß-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid copolymerization units (See Paragraph 0126) that accounts for majority of the resin since the entire layer is made of ionomer resin. Sajima et al. also discloses the core having a surface hardness and center hardness having a difference of greater than 20 JIS-C (See Paragraph 0119). Sajima et al. does not disclose an intervening oxazoline group-containing substance adjoining the surface of the core and envelope layer or the envelope layer having an ionomer of less than 80% mol neutralization. Hayashi et al. discloses a golf ball having a core 1 and envelope layer 2 where in the envelope layer is made of ionomer with 80% mol neutralization (See Paragraph 0072). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an ionomer neutralization degree less than 80% mol, as taught by Hayashi et al., in order to improve moldability while reducing cost. Takemura et al. discloses a golf ball having a core made of a diene rubber and a cover made of ionomer (See Abstract) wherein oxazoline group material is combined with the ionomer and diene rubber (See Paragraph 0007). Takemura et al. notes that increased feeling and resilience and repulsion is obtained using oxazoline group material. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an oxazoline group substance, as taught by Takemura et al., in order to improve feel, resilience, and repulsion.
Regarding claim 2, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Takemura et al. discloses the oxazoline group including acrylic or styrene-based polymers. The applicant also discloses the oxazoline group including an acrylic or styrene polymer (See Page 12, lines 3 through 8) which would imply that the oxazoline group disclosed by Takemura et al. to be a water-soluble polymer.
Regarding claim 8, Sajima et al. discloses the core having a deformation of 3 to 4.6mm (See Paragraph 0123).
Regarding claim 9, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, see the above regarding claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 have been considered but are moot due to new found reference Hayashi et al. (US 2001/0018375). In light of the newly found reference, the above rejection has been furnished.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN A HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4411. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ALVIN A HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711