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 Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 12/29/2025, the rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Aoyama does not meet the amended claim limitations in claim 1 including the pimple intersecting the equator and crossing the equator plane. Applicant also specifies in the claim that the equator is the 0° latitude line where the mold halves meet. Examiner agrees that Aoyama does not describe pimples crossing the equator line. After further search and consideration, Stefan is cited to meet these limitations.
In regards to claim 11, Applicant also argues that the boundaries described in Aoyama at 12° are not so close that a person of skill in the art would not expect a noticeable difference. Applicant notes the 2° difference between Aoyama and the claim is actually a 20% difference and that this is a significant difference which allows the instant application to ease the cutting process. Examiner disagrees. While Applicant suggests the 12° taught by Aoyama is a 20% difference from the 10° claimed, it must be taken into account that the claimed range is on a sphere. The quadrant of the sphere is 90°. A 2° difference in latitude on a 90° quadrant is a relatively negligible difference and one of skill would generally expect to see only negligible differences between the 10° and 12° range. Applicant notes ease of cutting as a benefit of the 10° range claimed however Applicant has not explained why this is unexpected or critical particularly because Aoyama also includes a buffing step. Additionally, Aoyama [0040] actually recognizes that the amount of material in the flared area affects the amount of removal of the dimples and further describes the effects of removing too much of the dimple shape, see [0045]. Given the teachings of Aoyama, a person of skill in the art would find it obvious to slightly modify the total area of the low latitude area to prevent damage while cutting.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that Aoyama modified by Ohama do not describe side surfaces extending in a height direction of the convex surface because it is inclined. Examiner disagrees. The claim does not specify that the side surface should extend only in the height direction and also does not specify which direction the height direction is. Particularly since the convex surface in Ohama includes half-circle, it is reasonable that the side walls extend in the height (radial) direction of the half circle. Additionally, the convex surface could also include the face 13 where the inclined face 12 meets the recessed part 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Aoyama (US 2004/0248668) modified by Stefan (US 2012/0157238.)
Regarding claim 8, Aoyama meets the claimed, A golf ball production method comprising: placing a material into a mold (Aoyama [0038] describes placing a primary material in a mold) including a pair of mold halves configured to be mated with each other thereby forming a cavity having a spherical shape, (Aoyama [0035]-[0036] describes mold parts 12,14 which are substantially hemispherical) wherein each of the mold halves has a cavity face including a plurality of pimples, (Aoyama [0037] describes dimples 32) each the cavity faces has a low-latitude zone and a high-latitude zone, each of the low-latitude zones includes a low-latitude base surface having an inner diameter larger than an inner diameter of a phantom sphere of the cavity, (Aoyama [0037] and Figure 1A show a flared area 34 at the equator which has a larger diameter, see also [0039], the flared area being the low-latitude zone and the rest of the mold being the high-latitude zone) each of the high-latitude zones includes a high-latitude base surface having an inner diameter equal to the inner diameter of the phantom sphere, (Aoyama Figure 1A shows the upper and lower parts of the mold surface are in the higher latitudes and are the same curvature C2 as the rest of the mold) each of the pimples protrudes from the low-latitude base surfaces or the high-latitude base surfaces, (Aoyama Figure 3 shows dimples 32 across both the low and high latitude areas) the pimples including a pimple that intersects an equator plane of the phantom sphere and that protrudes partially or entirely from the low-latitude base surfaces (Aoyama Figures 4 and 4A shows the dimples that intersect the equator and protrude partially from the flared area near the equator) and a pimple that is proximal to the equator plane and that protrudes partially or entirely from the low-latitude base surfaces; (Aoyama Figure 4A shows the dimples along the equator at the flared area) pressurizing the material in the mold to obtain a golf ball intermediate product having a shape that is an inverted shape of the cavity face; (Aoyama [0035] describes compression molding, reaction injection molding, and injection molding, all of which necessarily include a pressurizing step and the final product shape is the inversion of the mold) and cutting a vicinity of an equator of the golf ball intermediate product (Aoyama [0038]-[0039] describes buffing within the equator vicinity) wherein the equator plane is a plane where the pair of mold halves meet at a latitude of 0° (Aoyama Figures 4 and 4A show the equator is at the parting line of the mold halves at 0°.)
Aoyama shows dimples at the equator that are proximal to the equator and intersect the equator at least partially but Aoyama does not show any dimples that cross over the equator and does not meet the claimed, the pimple that intersects the equator plane of the phantom sphere including a portion that crosses the equator plane of the phantom sphere.
Analogous in the field of golf ball molds, Stefan meets the claimed, the pimple that intersects the equator plane of the phantom sphere including a portion that crosses the equator plane of the phantom sphere (Stefan [0032] and Figure 4 show a mold section of a golf ball mold having projections 57 (pimples) that cross the equator of the mold at the parting line. See also Figure 2A/2B.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the golf ball mold having projections near the equator as described in Aoyama with the golf ball mold having the projections that cross the equator of the mold as described in Stefan because having the parting line curving around the dimples allows the dimples to be placed closer together, see Stefan [0033].
Regarding claim 9, Aoyama meets the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 8, further comprising: producing the golf ball after said cutting the vicinity of the equator of the golf ball intermediate product (Aoyama [0038]-[0039] describes buffing the equatorial area and further treatments such as painting or labeling.)
Regarding claim 10, Aoyama meets the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 8, wherein a contour of the pimple that intersects the equator plane or is proximal to the equator plane belongs to the low-latitude zones over a length that is not less than 25% of a total length of the contour (Aoyama Figure 4A shows the entire surface area of the dimples are in the flared zone, see the dimples being located outside of the phantom diameter C2.)
Regarding claim 11, Aoyama [0036] describes the flared zone preferably begins at 88° which would be 12° and just outside of the claimed range, The golf ball production method according to claim 8, wherein latitudes of boundaries between the low-latitude zones and the high-latitude zones are not greater than 10°, however, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, see MPEP §2144.05(I). The range of 12° as disclosed in Aoyama is so close to the claimed 10° that a person of reasonable skill in the art would not expect a noticeable difference from just a 2° difference.
Regarding claim 16, Aoyama does not explicitly meet the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 8,wherein latitudes of boundaries between the low-latitude zones and the high-latitude zones are not greater than 8°, however, Aoyama [0040] describes that the amount of material included in the enlarged area 104 (low latitude area) is a result-effective variable which affects the amount of material removed from the ball in the buffing step following the molding. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the size of the area via the latitude through routine optimization in order to modify how much of the material is removed and prevent the dimples from becoming misshapen, see Aoyama [0040] and [0045]. See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama modified by Stefan as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Ohama (US 2004/0198536.)
Regarding claim 12, Aoyama does not describe a side and convex surface of the dimple and does not meet the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 8, wherein the pimple that intersects the equator plane or is proximal to the equator plane has a convex surface and a side surface, the convex surface is separated from the low-latitude base surface, and the side surface extends in a height direction of the convex surface and extends from an edge of the convex surface to the low-latitude base surface.
Analogous in the field of golf balls and golf ball molds, Ohama meets the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 8, wherein the pimple that intersects the equator plane or is proximal to the equator plane has a convex surface and a side surface, the convex surface is separated from the low-latitude base surface, and the side surface extends in a height direction of the convex surface and extends from an edge of the convex surface to the low-latitude base surface (Ohama Figure 5B shows a dimple with a convex surface and a side surface, the mold would have the corresponding structure as well.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the shape of the dimples described in Aoyama with the shape having the sidewall and convex surface as shown in Ohama in order to obtain a particular surface area ratio to improve the flight performance, see Ohama [0059].
PNG
media_image1.png
594
1006
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Ohama further meets the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 12, wherein a maximum value of a height of the side surface is not less than 20 μm (Ohama Table 1 Type II describes the dimensions of the shape shown in Figure 5B. The height of the side is the height h subtracted from the depth F. The heights described in the table are all 0.1582 mm and above which meets the claim.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the shape of the dimples described in Aoyama with the particular dimensions shown in Ohama in order to obtain a particular surface area ratio to improve the flight performance, see Ohama [0059].
Regarding claim 14, Ohama further meets the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 12, wherein the side surface has a maximum height at the equator plane (Ohama Figure 5b shows the height of the sides, there is only one height of the sides therefore the maximum height would occur at the equator plane and anywhere else the dimple was located.)
Regarding claim 15, Aoyama meets the claimed, The golf ball production method according to claim 12, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the low-latitude base surfaces includes a plurality of straight lines (Aoyama Figure 1A shows a cross section of the mold including a cross section of the flared area 34 which has at least two straight lines on either side before the curvature begins again.)
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744