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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending in the application. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claim 21 is a newly added claim. This Office Action responds to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed April 6, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to the foreign application 2022-070942 filed April 22, 2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on April 22, 2022, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed April 6, 2026, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 7-11, 13, and 17-20 are amended. Claim 12 is canceled. New claim 21 is added.
The prior objections to claims 1, 4, 7-9, 13, and 17-19 for informalities are hereby WITHDRAWN. Applicant's amendments resolve each identified informality. Claims 1 and 13 are amended to replace "(A1) a base rubber" with "a base rubber," removing the internal specification label. Claims 8 and 18 are amended to replace "in (A1) the base rubber" with "in the base rubber of the inner layer rubber composition." Claims 9 and 19 are amended to replace "(A2) a base rubber" with "a base rubber." Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are amended to delete the parenthetical abbreviations "(NBR)," "(HNBR)," "(XNBR)," and "(XHNBR)." Claim 4 is amended to restructure the claim into two express clauses, reciting that the inner layer rubber composition contains microballoons and that the cylindrical inner layer is a porous layer obtained by heating the inner layer rubber composition to foam the microballoons, thereby curing the awkward phrasing identified in the Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant's Remarks state that support for the amendments to claim 11 and for new claim 22 may be found in paragraph [0022]. No claim 22 appears in the amended claim listing. The Examiner understands Applicant to have intended a reference to new claim 21. No formal action is taken on this discrepancy at this time, but Applicant is invited to correct the record if appropriate.
The § 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action are maintained as revised below. Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the Response to Applicant's Arguments section of this Office Action.
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, 2, 4-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mikura et al. (US 9630077 B2; "Mikura") in view of Sheridan (The Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, 14th ed., 2010; "Sheridan").
Regarding claim 1, Mikura teaches a golf club grip comprising a cylindrical portion having a cylindrical inner layer and a cylindrical outer layer provided outside the cylindrical inner layer. Mikura discloses, with reference to Figures 1 and 2, a grip (1) including a cylindrical part (2) composed of an inner layer (2a) and an outer layer (2b), wherein the cylindrical outer layer is formed from a rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber as a base rubber and the inner layer is formed from an inner layer rubber composition (col. 1, lines 42-45). Mikura identifies the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubbers suitable for these compositions as including acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), carboxyl-modified acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (XNBR), hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HNBR), and carboxyl-modified hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HXNBR) (col. 2, lines 26-35; col. 6, lines 58-67; col. 7, lines 1-2). Accordingly, Mikura expressly teaches an inner layer rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber as a base rubber. However, Mikura does not expressly disclose a maximum torque value for the inner layer rubber composition, nor does Mikura disclose a torque range measured at 165℃ and an amplitude angle of one degree.
Sheridan provides authoritative disclosure of the rheological behavior of nitrile-based rubber compounds during vulcanization. Sheridan explains that nitrile rubber "lends itself to a virtually infinite number of approaches to compounding and compounding materials," resulting in compounds whose mechanical and curing properties span broad and predictable ranges (pp. 248-249, Table 7). With respect to standard test methods, Sheridan teaches that MDR standard test conditions call for oscillating strains of +0.5°, 1°, or 3° of arc and a nominal temperature of 160℃, and that "most compounders select the temperature and are that best suit their requirements of efficiency and sensitivity" (p. 641). The claimed conditions of 165℃ and one degree amplitude are therefore a standard, art-recognized selection of MDR operating parameters, not a special or critical configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
127
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 248
PNG
media_image2.png
146
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 249, Table 7
Sheridan discloses MDR 2000 rheometer measurements at 0.5° arc and 170℃ for a standard test compound containing 100 phr of various NBR grades and 50 phr of N550 carbon black, showing maximum torque (MH) values of 12.71 to 18.5 dN·m (1.271 to 1.85 N·m) for six NBR grades spanning 23-45% acrylonitrile content (p. 244, Table 2). Sheridan establishes that maximum torque is a recognized result-effective variable that varies predictably with acrylonitrile content, crosslink density, cure system, filler loading, and test conditions. Sheridan's standard formula uses 50 phr of N550 carbon black, which substantially exceeds the filler loading appropriate for a lightweight grip inner layer; reducing filler loading, selecting a lower-Mooney NBR grade, or adjusting the cure system would predictably yield lower maximum torque values. Sheridan further confirms that MDRs produce lower torques than ODRs for the same compound (p. 641), demonstrating that torque values are continuously adjustable through routine formulation decisions. Because maximum torque is thus a recognized result-effective variable, the selection of any particular maximum torque value within the claimed range (including the upper limit of 1.2 N·m) constitutes nothing more than the discovery of an optimum or workable range through routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) To the extent the claimed upper limit of N·m is not expressly met by the applied prior art, this does not defeat the rejection, because the optimum value of a result-effective variable is not patentable where the prior art discloses the variable and its relationship to the result (In re Aller, supra). Applicant's own specification confirms the achievability of the claimed range by disclosing inner layer compositions achieving approximately 0.377 to 0.599 N·m at the claimed test conditions (specification, Table 3). The claimed upper limit of 1.2 N·m has not been shown to mark a critical threshold; Applicant's data show a gradual, continuous performance relationship with no inflection point at that boundary. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 716.02(b).
PNG
media_image3.png
657
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 244, Table 2
PNG
media_image4.png
727
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 245, Table 2
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the inner layer rubber composition of Mikura's golf club grip to exhibit a maximum torque value within the claimed range, because Mikura teaches the use of acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber compositions for golf club grip inner layers and Sheridan establishes that maximum torque is a recognized result-effective variable routinely and predictably adjusted through well-known formulation choices. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). The person of ordinary skill in the relevant art is a rubber chemist or materials engineer experienced in formulating elastomeric compositions for sports equipment applications. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 2 further recites that the cylindrical inner layer is a porous layer. As established for claim 1, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having a cylindrical inner layer formed from an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber composition satisfying the maximum torque limitation. With respect to the porous layer limitation specifically, Mikura expressly discloses that the cylindrical inner layer of the golf club grip is a porous rubber layer or a porous resin layer, and that this porous structure is provided to reduce the overall weight of the grip while maintaining mechanical strength (col. 1, lines 39-53; col. 5, lines 30-44). Mikura teaches that the porous inner layer is preferably formed as a foamed layer from a composition containing a base rubber and a foaming agent, with the balloon foaming method using microballoons being the preferred technique (col. 5, lines 30-44). Sheridan additionally confirms that nitrile rubber is an art-recognized polymer for porous and sponge rubber applications, expressly identifying NBR among the standard polymers used for open-cell sponge rubber and providing a Soft Nitrile Sponge starting-point formulation for a porous NBR compound (p. 810; p. 813). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the cylindrical inner layer of claim 1 as a porous layer, because Mikura expressly teaches this construction as the preferred means of achieving a lightweight grip with adequate mechanical performance, and Sheridan confirms the suitability of nitrile rubber for such porous structures. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image5.png
291
623
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 813, Porous NBR Starting-point Formulation Table
Claim 4 further recites that the inner layer rubber composition contains microballoons and that the cylindrical inner layer is a porous layer obtained by heating the inner layer rubber composition to foam the microballoons. As established for claim 1, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having a cylindrical inner layer formed from an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber composition. With respect to the microballoon foaming limitation specifically, Mikura expressly teaches that the cylindrical inner layer is preferably a foamed layer formed from an inner layer composition containing microballoons, and that in the balloon foaming method, microballoons are allowed to be contained in the rubber composition and then expanded by heating to perform foaming (col. 5, lines 1-14). Mikura discloses that this balloon foaming method is the preferred technique for forming the porous inner layer, that microballoons may be organic or inorganic, and identifies specific commercial examples including Expancel manufactured by Akzo Nobel Company, confirming that thermoplastic expandable microballoons were well known and commercially available for this purpose (col. 5, lines 1-14; col. 5, lines 39-51). The amendment to claim 4 separates the limitation into two express clauses, one reciting that the composition contains microballoons and one reciting that the inner layer is obtained by heating to foam those microballoons, without altering the substantive scope of the claim relative to Mikura's teaching, which expressly addresses both aspects. Sheridan further confirms that the MDR 2000 is suited to measuring both the vulcanization and blowing reactions simultaneously in a single test for cellular rubber compositions containing expandable components (p. 643), corroborating that the maximum torque limitation of claim 1 is technically meaningful and measurable for microballoon-foamed inner layer compositions of the type taught by Mikura. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the porous inner layer of claim 1 using a rubber composition containing microballoons heated to achieve foaming, because Mikura expressly teaches this as the preferred approach to forming the lightweight porous inner layer structure. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 5 further recites that the cylindrical inner layer has an elongation at break of 730% or less in a tensile test. As established for claim 1, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having an inner layer formed from an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber composition. With respect to the elongation limitation specifically, Mikura does not expressly disclose a numerical elongation-at-break value for the inner rubber layer. Sheridan, however, teaches that typical nitrile rubber compounds exhibit elongation-at-break values spanning approximately 100% to 700% for a broad range of formulations (p. 249, Table 7), and provides specific formulation data showing elongation values of 306-469% for standard NBR compositions (p. 244, Table 2) and 415-500% for XNBR/NBR blends (pp. 246-247, Table 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
343
630
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 246, Table 4
Sheridan further discloses EV-cured NBR systems exhibiting elongation values of 566-735% depending on cure system and antioxidant selection (pp. 611-612, Table 58), and peroxide-cured NBR systems showing 310-350% elongation (pp. 612-614, Table 59).
PNG
media_image7.png
548
627
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 611, Table 58
PNG
media_image8.png
593
627
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 612, Table 59
The claimed upper limit of 730% falls within and substantially overlaps Sheridan's published elongation data for nitrile rubber compositions. Elongation at break is a recognized result-effective variable in rubber compounding that is routinely controlled through crosslink density, filler loading, and cure system selection, all of which Sheridan discusses at length. Selecting an upper elongation limit within the range Sheridan establishes as typical for such compositions represents routine optimization of a known property (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). The specification does not demonstrate criticality or unexpected results at the 730% boundary. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the inner rubber layer of claim 1 to exhibit an elongation at break of 730% or less, because Sheridan establishes that nitrile rubber compositions routinely achieve elongation values at or below this level through well-known formulation choices. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 6 further recites that the cylindrical inner layer has a swollen ratio of 200% or less in a toluene swollen test. As established for claim 1, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having an inner layer formed from an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber composition. With respect to the toluene swollen ratio limitation specifically, Mikura does not expressly disclose a numerical swollen ratio for the inner rubber layer. Sheridan teaches that nitrile rubber exhibits predictable and formulation-dependent solvent swelling behavior controlled by acrylonitrile content and crosslink density, and discloses oil swell values of -1.2% to -4.0% in ASTM No. 1 oil and limited swell in IRM 903 oil for well-crosslinked NBR compositions (p. 245, Table 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that toluene swelling, which serves as a standard proxy for crosslink density in nitrile rubber, is governed by the same formulation variables that control oil and fuel resistance and is routinely adjusted to desired levels through compounding choices that Sheridan discusses throughout the nitrile chapter. For adequately crosslinked nitrile rubber compositions of the type taught by Mikura, achieving a toluene swollen ratio of 200% or less is a routine target rather than a critical or inventive selection. The specification does not establish any inflection point or unexpected change in grip performance at or near the 200% limit (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 716.02(b)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a toluene swollen ratio of 200% or less for the inner rubber layer of claim 1, because Sheridan establishes that solvent swelling of nitrile rubber is predictably correlated with crosslink density and is routinely adjusted through standard compounding choices to achieve desired solvent resistance. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 7 further recites that the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber includes an acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber and a hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber. As established for claim 1, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having an inner layer formed from a rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber as a base rubber. With respect to the specific combination of NBR and HNBR recited in claim 7, Mikura expressly discloses that the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubbers suitable for use as inner layer base rubbers include both acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR) and hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HNBR) among a list of preferred materials (col. 6, lines 58-67; col. 7, lines 1-2). Mikura thus directly and expressly identifies both specific rubber types as members of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber family suitable for the inner layer composition of a golf club grip. Sheridan confirms that both NBR and HNBR are commercially available, well-characterized acrylonitrile-based elastomers with complementary performance profiles, devoting separate chapters to each, and that their selection for rubber product applications is guided by recognized performance criteria (pp. 238-257; pp. 258-269). The amendment to claim 7 removes the parenthetical abbreviations without altering the substantive scope of the limitation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use both NBR and HNBR as components of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber in the inner layer rubber composition of claim 1, because Mikura expressly identifies this combination as suitable and Sheridan confirms both materials as well-known and art-recognized for use in such compositions. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (B).
Claim 9 further recites that the cylindrical outer layer contains at least one member selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl-modified acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, a hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, and a carboxyl-modified hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber as a base rubber. As established for claim 1, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having a cylindrical outer layer formed from a rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber. With respect to the specific outer layer materials recited in claim 9, Mikura expressly discloses that the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber suitable for the outer layer includes XNBR, HNBR, and HXNBR as identified members of the rubber family (col. 2, lines 26-35). Mikura further demonstrates through comparative grip evaluation data that use of these materials in the outer layer provides measurably improved tensile strength and abrasion resistance relative to a plain NBR outer layer, confirming that their selection was motivated by well-known and predictable performance advantages (col. 17, lines 20-21, 57-67; col. 18, lines 1-5). Sheridan separately describes HNBR and XNBR as commercially available elastomers with recognized performance advantages over standard NBR, further confirming that selection of these materials for a golf club grip outer layer would have been routine and predictable. The amendment to claim 9 removes the parenthetical abbreviation labels without altering scope. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use XNBR, HNBR, or HXNBR as the base rubber in the outer layer of the grip of claim 1, because Mikura expressly teaches these specific materials for that purpose and provides comparative data demonstrating their performance advantages. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (B).
Claim 10 further recites that the maximum torque value ranges from 0.5 N·m to 1.1 N·m, the cylindrical inner layer has an elongation at break ranging from 300% to 730% in a tensile test, and the cylindrical inner layer has a swollen ratio ranging from 100% to 200% in a toluene swollen test. The amendment consolidates three limitations formerly in separate dependent claims, the torque range from original claim 10, the elongation range from original claim 11, and the swollen ratio range from original claim 12, while reducing the torque upper limit from 1.3 N·m to 1.1 N·m.
With respect to the tightened torque upper limit of 1.1 N·m, the same analysis applies as for the 1.2 N·m upper limit of claims 1 and 13. Maximum torque is a recognized result-effective variable for nitrile rubber compositions, as Sheridan establishes throughout the nitrile chapter. Achieving a target value within 0.5 to 1.1 N·m through routine formulation adjustment is not inventive, and Applicant has not demonstrated that the 1.1 N·m limit marks a critical performance boundary. With respect to the elongation range of 300% to 730%, Sheridan's published data for nitrile rubber formulations directly overlaps the claimed range, including 306-469% for standard NBR compounds (p. 244, Table 2), 415-500% for XNBR/NBR blends (pp. 246-247, Table 4), and 566-735% for EV-cured systems (pp. 611-612, Table 58). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range overlaps with a range disclosed by the prior art (In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2144.05(I) and (III)(A)). With respect to the swollen ratio range of 100% to 200%, the same result-effective variable analysis applies as set forth for claim 6; toluene swelling is routinely controlled through crosslink density and Applicant has not demonstrated criticality at the 100% or 200% boundaries. Combining three individually obvious limitations into a single claim does not create patentability where the combination produces only predictable results (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the inner rubber layer of claim I to satisfy all three of the recited property ranges simultaneously, because each is independently achievable through routine compounding as established by Sheridan and their combination produces no more than the predictable sum of their individual effects.
Claim 11 further recites that the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber includes an acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber and a hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, and that the acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber has a greater Mooney viscosity (ML1+4 (100℃)) than the hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber. The amendment to claim 11 entirely replaces the former elongation-at-break range limitation with this new relative Mooney viscosity limitation.
As established for claim 7, Mikura expressly teaches that the inner layer rubber composition may contain both NBR and HNBR as base rubber components (col. 6, lines 58-67; col. 7, lines 1-2). The new limitation added by claim 11 requires only that the selected NBR grade exhibit a greater Mooney viscosity (ML1+4 (100℃)) than the selected HNBR grade. This is a purely relative requirement that imposes no minimum magnitude of difference and no absolute Mooney value on either component.
Neither Mikura nor Sheridan expressly recites the relative Mooney viscosity of NBR and HNBR in a blend context, nor do they expressly require NBR Mooney to exceed HNBR Mooney. However, Sheridan teaches that Mooney viscosity is "the other most commonly cited criterion for defining nitrile elastomers" after acrylonitrile content, and that multiple NBR grades are available at several Mooney viscosity levels to suit different processing and performance requirements (p. 238). The commercial Mooney viscosity range for cold NBRs spans from approximately 20 to more than 110 (p. 241), and Table 2 shows compound Mooney values of 62 to 73 for the six standard NBR grades tested (p. 244, Table 2). Sheridan's Soft Nitrile Sponge formulation (p. 813) specifically designates "Low Mooney, Med. ACN" NBR as the base rubber for a porous nitrile rubber application directly analogous to the claimed inner layer, confirming that Mooney viscosity selection for porous nitrile rubber was an expressly recognized design consideration in the prior art.
PNG
media_image9.png
306
622
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Sheridan, p. 238, Acrylonitrile Content and Mooney Viscosity
Applicant's own specification discloses that the preferred Mooney viscosity for NBR is 30 to 80 and for HNBR is 20 to 70 (specification, pp. 4-5), ranges that overlap extensively. Within these overlapping ranges, selecting an NBR grade with higher Mooney than the chosen HNBR grade is one of many equally predictable and available design combinations, not a special or inventive choice. No special knowledge or experimentation is required; a rubber formulator selecting grades from commercial catalogs would encounter this combination routinely (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP 2143(I)(E). The improvement in collapsing resistance associated with higher-Mooney NBR is moreover predictable from polymer science: higher Mooney reflects higher molecular weight, which predictably yields better chain entanglement and improved compression set in blended rubber systems. Applicant's own specification explains this mechanism directly, stating that when NBR has greater Mooney than HNBR "the improvement effect in the compression permanent strain is greater." A result explained by a known mechanism is expected, expected (In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967); 716.02(c)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select an NBR grade with a greater Mooney viscosity than the selected HNBR grade for use in the inner layer rubber composition of claim 1, because such selection is a routine design choice from overlapping commercial grade ranges with predictable mechanical consequences.
Claims 13-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mikura et al. (US 9630077 B2; "Mikura") in view of Sheridan (The Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, 14th ed., 2010; "Sheridan").
Claim 13 is directed to a golf club comprising a shaft, a head provided on one end of the shaft, and a grip provided on another end of the shaft, wherein the grip is a golf club grip comprising a cylindrical portion having a cylindrical inner layer and a cylindrical outer layer provided outside the cylindrical inner layer, the cylindrical inner layer is formed from an inner layer rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber as a base rubber, and the inner layer rubber composition has a maximum torque value of 0.5 N·m or more and 1.2 N·m or less in a vulcanization curve measured at a temperature of 165°C and an amplitude angle of one degree.
Mikura teaches a golf club comprising a shat (5), a head (6) attached to one end of the shaft, and a grip (1) attached (o the other end of the shaft, wherein the grip includes a cylindrical part (2) composed of an inner layer (2a) and an outer layer (2b) (col. 1, lines 39-53; Fig. 3). The inner layer is formed from a rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber as a base rubber (col. 6, lines 58-67; col. 7, lines 1-2). The analysis of the maximum torque limitation for claim 13 is the same as that set forth for claim 1. The same Sheridan teachings, the same result-effective variable analysis, the same confirmation from Applicant's specification, and the same absence of criticality at the 1.2 N·m boundary all apply equally to the golf club of claim 13. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been equally motivated to formulate the inner layer rubber composition of Mikura’s golf club with an appropriate crosslink density, as reflected in maximum torque, to achieve the desired grip performance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Mikura and Sheridan such that the inner layer rubber composition of Mikuta’s golf club grip exhibits a maximum torque within the claimed range, for the same reasons articulated in connection with claim 1. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 14 further recites that the cylindrical inner layer of the golf club grip is a porous layer. As established for claim 13, Mikura teaches a golf club with a grip having a cylindrical inner layer formed from an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber composition satisfying the maximum torque limitation. As explained with respect to claim 2, Mikura expressly discloses that the cylindrical inner layer of the golf club grip is a porous rubber layer or a porous resin layer, and that providing the inner layer with a porous structure is the mechanism by which the grip achieves reduced weight while maintaining mechanical strength and grip performance (col. 1, lines 39-53; col. 5, lines 30-44). Incorporation of such a grip into a golf club does not alter the porosity or its function. Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable for the same reason as claim 2. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 15 further recites that the cylindrical inner layer has an elongation at break of 730% or less in a tensile test. As established for claim 13, Mikura teaches a golf club with a grip having a cylindrical inner layer formed from an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber composition. However, Mikura does not expressly disclose a numerical elongation-at-break value for the inner rubber layer of the golf club grip. As explained with respect to claim 5, Sheridan teaches that nitrile-based rubber compounds routinely exhibit elongation-at-break values well below 730% and elongation is controlled through conventional compounding and curing. The presence of a shaft and head does not affect elongation behavior of the grip. Accordingly, claim 15 is unpatentable for the same reasons as claim 5. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2143(I)(E) and 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 16 further recites that the cylindrical inner layer has a swollen ratio of 200% or less in a toluene swollen test. As established for claim 13, Mikura teaches a golf club with a grip having a cylindrical inner layer formed from an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber composition. However, Mikura does not expressly disclose a numerical swollen ratio for the inner rubber layer of the golf club grip. As explained with respect to claim 6, Sheridan teaches that nitrile-based rubber compositions exhibit predictable and limited solvent swelling behavior correlated with crosslink density, and a swollen ratio of 200% or less represents a non-critical and routine threshold. The presence of a shaft and head does not affect solvent diffusion into the grip. Accordingly, claim 16 is unpatentable for the same reasons as claim 6. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2143(I)(E) and 716.02(b).
Claim 17 further recites that the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber includes an acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber and a hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber. As established for claim 13, Mikura teaches a golf club with a grip having an inner layer formed from a rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber as a base rubber. As explained with respect to claim 7, Mikura expressly discloses both NBR and HNBR as suitable rubbers for forming golf club grips. Incorporating such a grip into a golf club does not change the rubber selection. Accordingly, claim 17 is unpatentable for the same reasons as claim 7. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (B).
Claim 19 further recites that the cylindrical outer layer contains at least one member selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl-modified acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, a hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, and a carboxyl-modified hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber as a base rubber. As established for claim 13, Mikura teaches a golf club with a grip having a cylindrical outer layer formed from a rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber. As explained with respect to claim 9, Mikura expressly discloses each of these rubbers as suitable materials for the outer layer of a golf club grip. The shaft and head do not affect outer layer material selection. Accordingly, claim 19 is unpatentable for the same reason as claim 9.
Claim 20 further recites that the maximum torque value ranges from 0.5 N·m to 1.1 N·m, the cylindrical inner layer has an elongation at break ranging from 300% to 730% in a tensile test, and the cylindrical inner layer has a swollen ratio ranging from 100% to 200% in a toluene swollen test. The amendment to claim 20 reduces the torque upper limit from 1.3 N·m to 1.1 N·m, mirroring the change to claim 10 in the grip. As explained with respect to claim 10, Sheridan teaches each of these properties as routine manifestations of nitril rubber formulation and crosslink density, and the claimed sub-ranges represent non-critical selections from broader, predictable ranges. Incorporation of such a grip into a golf club does not introduce any new functional interaction or unexpected result. Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable for the same reasons as claims 10. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (B).
Claim 21 further recites that the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber includes an acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber and a hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, and that the acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber has a greater Mooney viscosity (ML1+4 (100℃)) than the hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber. As established for claim 17, Mikura expressly teaches that the inner layer rubber composition of a golf club grip may contain both NBR and HNBR as base rubber components (col. 6, lines 58-67; col. 7, lines 1-2). Claim 21 adds to that combination the same relative Mooney viscosity requirement as amended claim 11 in the grip. Neither Mikura nor Sheridan expressly recites the relative Mooney viscosity relationship between NBR and HNBR in a blend context.
However, as set forth in the analysis of claim 11, Sheridan establishes that Mooney viscosity is the primary criterion for selecting among NBR grades, that commercial NBR grades span Mooney values from approximately 20 to more than 110, and that Mooney viscosity selection for porous nitrile rubber applications was a recognized design consideration, as evidenced by Sheridan's Soft Nitrile Sponge formulation specifying "Low Mooney, Med. ACN" NBR. The fact that claim 21 applies to the golf club of claim 13 rather than the stand-alone grip of claim 11 does not change any element of this analysis; the Mooney viscosity relationship between the NBR and HNBR components is a property of the rubber formulation, not of the golf club assembly. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select an NBR grade with a greater Mooney viscosity than the selected HNBR grade for use in the inner layer rubber composition of the golf club of claim 13, for the same reasons articulated in connection with claim 11. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikura et al. (US 9630077 B2; "Mikura") in view of Sheridan (The Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, 14th ed., 2010; "Sheridan") and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 10286269 B2, "Inoue").
Claim 3 further recites that the porous layer has a density in a range from 0.20 g/cm3 to 0.60 g/cm3. As established for claims 1 and 2, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having a porous cylindrical inner layer formed from a rubber composition containing an acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber. With respect to the density limitation added by claim 3, Mikura does not expressly disclose a numerical density range for the porous inner layer, and Sheridan is relied upon to establish the predictable material behavior of nitrile rubber compositions rather than to teach porous layer density values specifically.
Inoue expressly teaches that, in a golf club grip having a porous inner layer, the density of the porous inner layer is preferably 0.20 g/cm3 or more, more preferably 0.22 g/cm3 or more, even more preferably 0.25 g/cm3 or more, and is preferably 0.50 g/cm3 or less, more preferably 0.48 g/cm3 or less, even more preferably 0.45 g/cm3 or less (col. 13, lines 8-18). Inoue teaches that this density range reflects a balance between weight reduction and deformation resistance for the porous inner layer of a golf club grip, which is precisely the same design tradeoff present in the claimed invention. Inoue's disclosed density range of 0.20 to 0.50 g/cm3 overlaps directly with the claimed range of 0.20 to 0.60 g/cm3. The upper portion of the claimed range (0.50 to 0.60 g/cm3) extends Inoue's preferred range modestly, and Sheridan confirms that blown rubber densities of 100 to 750 kg/m3 (0.10 to 0.75 g/cm3) are easily attainable (p. 815), fully encompassing the claimed range. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a density within the claimed range for the porous inner layer of the golf club grip of claims 1 and 2, because Inoue expressly teaches this density range for exactly this structural component in a golf club grip application and establishes it as the appropriate range for balancing weight reduction and deformation resistance. Selecting a density value at or near Inoue's disclosed range represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable for which the general conditions and performance tradeoffs are already established in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2143(I)(E) and 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 8 further recites that an amount of the acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber in the base rubber of the inner layer rubber composition ranges from 10 mass% to 90 mass%. As established for claims 1 and 7, Mikura teaches a golf club grip having an inner layer rubber composition containing both NBR and HNBR as components of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber. With respect to the specific NBR content range added by claim 8, neither Mikura nor Sheridan expressly discloses a mass percentage range for NBR when used in combination with HNBR in the inner layer base rubber.
Inoue teaches that the amount of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber in the base rubber of a golf club grip composition is preferably 50 mass% or more, more preferably 60 mass% or more, and even more preferably 70 mass% or more (col. 3, lines 1-5). The Examiner acknowledges that Inoue's disclosure at this location refers to the collective total of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber family, which Inoue defines as including NBR, XNBR, HNBR, and HXNBR, rather than to the proportion of NBR alone within an NBR/HNBR binary blend. However, this does not change the outcome. The claimed range of 10 to 90 mass% for NBR in the base rubber encompasses essentially all practically meaningful ratios of NBR to HNBR in a binary blend. In a binary NBR/HNBR blend constituting the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber component of the base rubber, adjusting the proportion of the two components to balance their respective contributions, oil resistance, tackiness, and processability from NBR against heat resistance, weathering resistance, and abrasion resistance from HNBR, is a routine compounding decision that a person of ordinary skill would make without inventive effort. Inoue confirms that adjusting the proportion of nitrile-based rubber in a golf club grip composition is a recognized and routinely adjusted design parameter. The extremely broad claimed range does not identify any particular innovative ratio, and selection of an appropriate NBR/HNBR ratio within this range constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the NBR content in the NBR/HNBR base rubber of the inner layer rubber composition of claims 1 and 7 to a value within the claimed range, because doing so represents routine optimization of a blend ratio for which the relevant performance tradeoffs are well established in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikura et al. (US 9630077 B2; "Mikura") in view of Sheridan (The Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook, 14th ed., 2010; "Sheridan") and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 10286269 B2, "Inoue").
Claim 18 further recites that an amount of the acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber in the base rubber of the inner layer rubber composition ranges from 10 mass% to 90 mass%. As established for claims 13 and 17, Mikura teaches a golf club having a grip with an inner layer rubber composition containing both NBR and HNBR as components of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber. The amendment to claim 18 corrects the dependency from claim 13 to claim 17, which is appropriate because claim 17 requires the NBR and HNBR combination that provides the necessary antecedent basis for the NBR-specific content limitation of claim 18. With respect to the NBR content range added by claim 18, neither Mikura nor Sheridan expressly discloses a mass percentage range for NBR when used in combination with HNBR in the inner layer base rubber of a golf club.
Inoue teaches that the amount of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber in the base rubber of a golf club grip composition is preferably 50 mass% or more (col. 3, lines 1-5). As discussed in connection with claim 8, this teaching addresses the collective total of the NBR rubber family rather than NBR alone, but it confirms that adjusting the proportion of nitrile-based rubber in golf club grip compositions is a recognized design parameter. The claimed range of 10 to 90 mass% for NBR in the base rubber is so broad as to encompass essentially all usable NBR/HNBR blend ratios, and selecting any ratio within this range represents routine optimization of a known blending variable. The fact that the claim applies to the golf club of claim 13 rather than the stand-alone grip of claim 8 does not alter the analysis; the mass ratio of NBR to HNBR in the base rubber is a property of the rubber formulation that is unaffected by whether the grip is mounted on a shaft. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the NBR content in the NBR/HNBR base rubber of the inner layer rubber composition of claims 13 and 17 to a value within the claimed range, because the same analysis and legal basis that applies to claim 8 applies equally to claim 18. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2143(I)(E) and 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Applicant's Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed April 6, 2026, have been fully considered. The objections to claims 1, 4, 7-9, 13, and 17-19 for informalities are withdrawn as set forth in the Response to Amendment section above, and in that respect Applicant's argument is persuasive. With respect to the § 103 rejections, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding the Sheridan citation correction, Applicant correctly asserts that pages 331-332, Tables 3 and 4 of Sheridan contain data for an ethylene acrylic elastomer (AEM/Vamac®) used in hose and seal applications, and that page 62, Table 3 contains ODR data for synthetic polyisoprene (Natsyn® 2200), not nitrile rubber. The Examiner has verified these assertions and acknowledges that these citations were in error. Pages 331-332 and page 62 of Sheridan are not relied upon in this Final Office Action, and the rejections have been revised accordingly. However, the correction of these citations does not overcome the § 103 rejections, which are maintained on independent grounds that do not depend on the cited AEM or polyisoprene data.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Sheridan's valid nitrile MDR data from Table 2, page 244, shows maximum torque values of 1.271 N·m or higher at 170℃ and 0.5° arc all exceeding the amended 1.2 N·m upper limit of claims 1 and 13, this argument is not persuasive for several independent reasons:
First, Sheridan's Table 2 data was collected at 170℃ and 0.5° arc, while the amended claims specify 165℃ and 1.0° arc. As Sheridan confirms, both 0.5° and 1.0° arc are standard, selectable MDR operating conditions, and compounders routinely choose the configuration that best suits their requirements (p. 641). The Sheridan data does not establish that nitrile rubber compositions are incapable of achieving maximum torque within the claimed range under the claimed conditions; it reflects one particular standard configuration.
Second, Sheridan's Table 2 formula contains 50 phr of N550 carbon black, substantially exceeding the filler content of a lightweight golf grip inner layer. Reducing filler loading or adjusting the cure system predictably lowers maximum torque.
Third, Applicant's own specification establishes that nitrile rubber inner layer compositions achieve approximately 0.377 to 0.599 N·m at the claimed conditions, confirming that the claimed range is demonstrably achievable though routine formulation adjustment. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and (III)(C).
Fourth, Applicant has not demonstrated that the 1.2 upper limit marks a critical performance boundary; the comparative data in the specification show a continuous, gradual change in collapsing resistance with no inflection point at or near 1.2 N·m. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 716.02(b).
Regarding Applicant's argument that there is no motivation to combine Mikura and Sheridan and that the combination reflects impermissible hindsight, this argument is not persuasive. Sheridan satisfies both prongs of the analogous art test. It is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, rubber compound formulation and characterization including nitrile elastomers, because the application concerns formulating a nitrile rubber composition for a golf club grip inner layer. Sheridan is also reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor was trying to solve, which is ensuring that the nitrile rubber inner layer composition exhibits appropriate crosslink density, reflected in maximum torque, to achieve adequate mechanical performance. Sheridan directly addresses how nitrile rubber crosslink density is measured and controlled through formulation, making it the natural reference a skilled rubber formulator would consult (See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); 2141.01(a)(I)). The motivation to consult Sheridan is supplied by Mikura's own teaching of a nitrile rubber inner layer, not by anything gleaned from Applicant's disclosure in hindsight. Applicant's argument that the individual references do not each teach every limitation does not overcome the rejection, which relies on the combined teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983); MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding Applicant's argument that claims 11 and 21 are patentable because the Mooney viscosity comparison (MVNBR > MVHNBR) produces unexpected improvements in collapsing resistance and weather resistance, this argument is not persuasive. The claim requires only that the selected NBR grade have any greater Mooney viscosity than the selected HNBR grade, including a difference of a single Mooney unit. Given the extensively overlapping Mooney ranges for commercial NBR (preferably 30-80 per the specification) and HNBR preferably 20-70 per the specification), a person of ordinary skill would encounter Mooney-higher-NBR combinations routinely when selecting from commercial grade offerings (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP 2143(I)(E)). The alleged improvement is expected in view of polymer science; higher Mooney reflects higher molecular weight, which predictably yields better chain entanglement and improved compression set, and Applicant's own specification explains this mechanism directly (In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967); MPEP 716.02(c)). The comparative evidence in the application's Table 3 does not satisfy the standard for establishing unexpected results because it is unclear that the Mooney viscosity ratio is the sole varying parameter, and the claim covers all NBR/HNBR combinations in which NBR Mooney exceeds HNBR Mooney by any amount, rendering the evidence insufficient in scope to support the full breadth of the claim. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 716.02(b); In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987); MPEP 716.02(b) and 2145.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Inoue's disclosure in support of claims 8 and 18 is misdescribed, specifically that the cited passage appears at col. 3, lines 1-5 rather than col. 2, lines 36-44 and that it refers to the collective total of the acrylonitrile-butadiene based rubber family rather than to NBR alone, these factual points are correct and the column citation is hereby corrected to col. 3, lines 1-5. As set forth in the rejection above, however, this correction does not change the outcome because the claimed 10 to 90 mass% range for NBR encompasses essentially all usable blend ratios with HNBR, and selecting any ratio within this range constitutes routine optimization of a known blending variable. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), (II)(B) and (III)(C).
Conclusion
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 ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (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 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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights