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 § 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) 1, 3-8, 11-14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagakura et al. (2021/0299522). Claim 1, Nagakura discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical constituent member, wherein the spherical constituent member is formed from a rubber composition containing (a) a rubber component containing a natural rubber, (b) a co-crosslinking agent, (c) a crosslinking initiator [0016-0017], and an organic sulfur compound [0091]. The center hardness is from 30 to 70 Shore C [0118]. A hardness difference (Hs-Ho) between a surface hardness (Hs) and the center hardness (Ho) of the spherical constituent member is 13 or less in Shore C hardness [0116]. The absolute value of a hardness difference (Hs-H50) between the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical constituent member and a hardness (H50) at a 50% point of a radius of the spherical constituent member from a center of the spherical constituent member is 10 or less in Shore C hardness [0115]. A hardness difference (H50-H0) is from 1 to 20 [0114]. Claim 3, the absolute value of the hardness difference (Hs-H50) is 5 or less [0115]. Claim 4, the hardness (H50) at the 50% point of the radius of the spherical constituent member from the center of the spherical constituent member is 73 in Shore C hardness (table 2, example 2). Claim 5, the golf ball has a diameter ranging from 40 mm to 45 mm, and a compression deformation amount of 2.4 mm or more and 5.0 mm or less when applying a load from an initial load of 98 N to a final load of 1275 N to the golf ball [0137]. Claim 6, the rubber composition contains the natural rubber in an amount ranging from 10 mass % to 40 mass % [0018]. Claim 7, the rubber composition contains an organic sulfur compound of thiophenols and/or polysulfides [0092]. Claim 8, the rubber composition further contains (d2) an organic sulfur compound of thiazoles [0092]. Claim 11, the hardness difference (Hs-Ho) is 3 in Shore C hardness [0116]. Claim 12, the center hardness of the core (Ho) is from 30 to 70 [0118]. Claim 13, the surface hardness (Hs) is 60 to 90 in Shore C hardness [0117]. Claim 14, the hardness (H50) is 73 in Shore C hardness (table 1). Claim 15, a hardness difference (H50-Ho) between the hardness (H50 or 10mm point) and the hardness (Ho) is 0.4 in Shore C hardness (74.3-73.9) (table 2, example 4). Claim 17, (a) the rubber component further contains a synthetic rubber [0017]. Claim 18, the synthetic rubber has a Mooney viscosity (ML1+4 (100 °C)) ranging from 30 to 80 [0021].
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagakura et al. (2021/0299522). Claim 10, Nagakura discloses the composition includes two or more organic sulfur compounds such as thiophenols and thiazoles in the amount from 0.05 part by mass to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of (a) the base rubber [0099-0100]. Nagakura does not disclose the amount of the compounds separately. However, varying the amounts is within the capabilities of one skilled in the arts. "[W]here 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).
Claim(s) 9, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagakura et al. (2021/0299522) in view of Hayashi et al. (2020/0376347). Claim 9, Nagakura does not disclose the core as a one-piece golf ball. Hayashi teaches a core can be a one-piece golf ball [0133]. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the core component as an obvious design choice. Claim 19, Nagakura discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical constituent member, wherein the spherical constituent member is formed from a rubber composition containing (a) a rubber component containing a natural rubber, (b) a co-crosslinking agent, (c) a crosslinking initiator [0016-0017], and an organic sulfur compound [0091]. The center hardness is from 30 to 70 Shore C [0118]. A hardness difference (Hs-Ho) between a surface hardness (Hs) and the center hardness (Ho) of the spherical constituent member is 13 or less in Shore C hardness [0116]. The absolute value of a hardness difference (Hs-H50) between the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical constituent member and a hardness (H50) at a 50% point of a radius of the spherical constituent member from a center of the spherical constituent member is 10 or less in Shore C hardness [0115]. A hardness difference (H50-H0) is from 1 to 20 [0114]. Nagakura does not disclose the core as a one-piece golf ball. Hayashi teaches a core can be a one-piece golf ball [0133]. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the core component as an obvious design choice. Claim 20, Nagakura discloses the composition includes two or more organic sulfur compounds such as thiophenols and thiazoles in the amount from 0.05 part by mass to 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of (a) the base rubber [0099-0100]. Nagakura does not disclose the amount of the compounds separately. However, varying the amounts is within the capabilities of one skilled in the arts. "[W]here 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 15 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.
Claim 21 is allowed.
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 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
January 5, 2026