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 § 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 is confusing, the core material is not understood, the Markush grouping is not correct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loper et al. (2012/0129630) in view of Sullivan et al. (2005/0250600). Claim 1, Loper discloses a golf ball comprising five layers; a core have a first flexural modulus, an inner mantle layer (innermost mantle layer) wherein the inner mantle layer has a second flexural modulus different than the first flexural modulus; an intermediate mantle layer (outermost mantle layer) wherein the intermediate mantle layer has a third flexural modulus different than the first and second flexural moduli; a an outer mantle layer (particulate material) wherein the outer mantle layer has a fourth flexural modulus less than the third flexural modulus; and [0218], a cover layer having an outer surface defining a plurality of dimples wherein the cover layer has a fifth flexural modulus less than the third and fourth flexural moduli [0030] (table 2, example B). Loper discloses any layer of the golf ball comprises tungsten in any amount readily determined without undue experimentation but does not disclose the density of the layer [0190-0191]. Sullivan teaches any layer of the golf ball comprises ap to 60% tungsten of the total layer, wherein the high density is greater than 5 g/cc [0045-0046:0074]. Tungsten inherently has a density of 19.25 g/cc indicating the density of the layer would be greater than applicant’s minimum value of 2 g/cc with a filler amount up to 60% tungsten. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the amount of tungsten in the layer for the desired durability. Claim 2, Loper discloses wherein the fourth flexural modulus is between from about 20,000 to about 70,000 psi [0219]. Claim 3, Loper discloses wherein the third flexural modulus is between from about 20,000 psi and about 60,000 psi [0219]. Claim 4, Loper discloses wherein the fifth flexural modulus is between from about 11,000 psi (table 2, example B). Claim 5, Loper discloses the outer mantle is inherently structural. Claim 7, Loper discloses wherein the cover layer is fabricated from at least one of the materials selected from the group consisting of an ionomer resin or polyurethane. The intermediate mantle layer and the inner mantle layer are fabricated from a polymer [0223; 0220]. Claim 8, Loper discloses a golf ball comprising: a core having a first flexural modulus, an inner mantle layer, wherein the inner mantle layer inner surface registers against the outer surface of the spherical core, and wherein the inner mantle layer has a second flexural modulus different than the first flexural modulus; an outer mantle (particulate material layer) and wherein the outer mantle layer (particulate layer) has a third flexural modulus less than the second flexural modulus (abstract). Loper discloses the outer mantle flex modulus (third) is from 10 to 90 kpsi and the inner mantle layer flex modulus is from 10 to 60 kpsi (second). The third modulus is capable of being less than the second modulus [0219]. One of ordinary skill in the art would vary the modulus values among the layers for the desired performance. Loper further discloses a cover layer having an outer surface defining a plurality of dimples and an inner surface opposite the outer surface, wherein the inner surface registers against the outer mantle layer, wherein the cover layer has a fourth flexural modulus less than the second and third flexural moduli [0030] (table 2, example B). Loper discloses any layer of the golf ball comprises tungsten in any amount readily determined without undue experimentation but does not disclose the density of the layer [0190-0191]. Sullivan teaches any layer of the golf ball comprises ap to 60% tungsten of the total layer, wherein the high density is greater than 5 g/cc [0045-0046:0074]. Tungsten inherently has a density of 19.25 g/cc indicating the density of the layer would be greater than applicant’s minimum value of 2 g/cc with a filler amount up to 60% tungsten. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the amount of tungsten in the layer for the desired durability. Claim 9, Loper discloses wherein the third flexural modulus is between from about 20,000 to about 70,000 psi [0219]. Claim 10, Loper discloses wherein the second flexural modulus is between from about 10,000 psi and about 60,000 psi [0219]. Claim 11, Loper discloses wherein the fourth flexural modulus is between from about 11,000 psi (table 2, example B). Claim 13, Loper discloses wherein the cover layer is fabricated from at least one of the materials selected from the group consisting of an ionomer resin or polyurethane and the mantle layer is fabricated from a polymer [0223; 0220]. Claim 15, Loper discloses the mantle layers are made from ionomers [0220]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the amount of tungsten in the layer for the desired durability.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (2005/0250600) in view of Loper et al. (2012/0129630). Claim 16, Sullivan discloses a golf ball comprising: a spherical core having a first flexural modulus, an intermediate layer (particulate material layer), wherein the intermediate layer has a second flexural modulus less than the first flexural modulus [0070; 0084]. Sullivan discloses any layer of the golf ball comprises at least 20% tungsten of the total layer, wherein the high density is greater than 5 g/cc [0045-0046:0074], and a cover layer having an outer surface and an inner surface opposite the outer surface, wherein the inner surface registers against the intermediate layer. Sullivan does not disclose dimples or the cover layer has a third flexural modulus less than the first and second flexural moduli. Loper teaches a dimpled cover with a flexural modulus of 11,000 psi (table 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the cover for enhanced performance. Claim 17, Sullivan discloses the second flexural modulus is at least 50,000 psi [0084]. Claim 18, Loper teaches the third flexural modulus is 11,000 psi (table 2). Claim 20, Sullivan discloses the cover is formed from TDI or MDI urethanes and cured with amine curatives ([0085] refers the polyurethanes from 5,692,974, see column 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the cover for enhanced performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior are discloses tungsten as a filler, and not as an independent layer. Applicant has not claimed an independent tungsten layer. The claims make clear the layer comprises tungsten, there is nothing in the claims that states tungsten is an independent layer. Also, if the layer is only made of tungsten the range for the density would not vary from 2 to 20g/cc, the value would be constant.
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 RAEANN GORDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/RAEANN GORDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
December 15, 2025