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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2, 5-16, and 19 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2001/0047986) in view of Miller et al. (6,706,995). Claim 1, Brown discloses a method of providing at least one marking or visual effect on a golf ball, the method comprising (i) providing a golf ball comprising at least a cover layer and a paint layer wherein the paint layer is outside the cover layer. And (ii) removing at least a portion of the paint layer to at least partially expose the cover layer, and to define at least one marking or visual effect on the golf ball (abstract) [0041]. Brown does not specifically disclose the paint layer is a different color than the cover layer. Miller teaches a method for applying indicia comprising the paint layer color different than the color of the layer beneath (col. 9, lines 25-38). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the colors of the indica for the desired aesthetic. Claim 2, Brown discloses step (ii) comprises laser engraving (abstract). Claim 5, Brown discloses the first layer is a cover layer, and the second coating layer is a paint layer (abstract). Claim 6, Brown discloses the cover layer is comprised of at least one of ionomer or urethane [0033-0034]. Claim 7, Brown discloses the golf ball further comprises one or more paint layers arranged radially outward relative to the cover (abstract), but does not disclose a different paint color for the exterior most paint layer. Miller teaches a substrate (metal) and two paint layers wherein the outermost paint layer is removed to reveal the first paint layer (col. 9, lines 30-36). Claim 8, Brown discloses laser engraving to remove material at two different depths [0017, 0044]. Claim 9, Brown discloses applying a clear topcoat before or after engraving [0041]. Claim 11, Brown in view of Miller discloses two different colors which would obviously produce a color gradient between the two colors after lasering. Claim 13, Miller teaches a cooling unit coupled to the laser generation region to maintain the proper temperature (col 6, lines 23-25). One of ordinary skill in the art would include a cooling technique. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the colors of the indica for the desired aesthetic.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2001/0047986) in view of Miller et al. (6,706,995), and further in view of Wai (6,248,974). Brown in view of Miller does not disclose the golf ball rotating while using the laser. Wai teaches a laser in use while rotating a golf ball. One of ordinary skill in the art would rotate the golf ball for precision.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2001/0047986) in view of Miller et al. (6,706,995), and further in view of Barrett (D655,358).
Brown discloses the indicia may be any size but does not disclose at least 180 degrees around the golf ball [0040]. Barrett teaches indicia spanning at least 180 degrees around a golf ball. One of ordinary skill in the art would have increased the size of the indicia for the desired aesthetic.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2001/0047986) in view of Miller et al. (6,706,995), Wai (6,248,974), and Barrett (D655,358). Claim 14, Brown discloses a method of providing at least one marking or visual effect on a golf ball, the method comprising (i) providing a golf ball comprising at least a cover layer and a paint layer wherein the paint layer is outside the cover layer. And (ii) removing at least a portion of the paint layer to at least partially expose the cover layer, and to define at least one marking or visual effect on the golf ball (abstract) [0041]. Brown does not specifically disclose the paint layer is a different color than the cover layer. Miller teaches a method for applying indicia comprising the paint layer color different than the color of the layer beneath (col. 9, lines 25-38). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the colors of the indica for the desired aesthetic. Wai teaches a laser in use while rotating a golf ball. One of ordinary skill in the art would rotate the golf ball for precision. Barrett teaches indicia spanning at least 180 degrees around a golf ball. One of ordinary skill in the art would have increased the size of the indicia for the desired aesthetic. Claims 15-16, Miller teaches a cooling unit coupled to the laser generation region to maintain the proper temperature (col 6, lines 23-25). One of ordinary skill in the art would include a cooling technique. Claim 19, Brown in view of Miller discloses two different colors which would obviously produce a color gradient between the two colors after lasering. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the colors of the indica for the desired aesthetic. One of ordinary skill in the art would rotate the golf ball for precision. One of ordinary skill in the art would have increased the size of the indicia for the desired aesthetic.
Conclusion
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
April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights