DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “great circle arc connecting the dimple’s center to the center of a neighboring dimple” of claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sullivan (US Pub. No. 2002/0165044 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses a golf ball (Fig. 3 being exemplary) comprising a plurality of dimples (Fig. 3 being exemplary), at least one of the dimples comprising: a plurality of asymmetrical blades connected about a dimple center (Fig. 4b below, item 30 being the center; noting the blades are asymmetric because they are not mirror symmetric about a center line), wherein each blade comprises a trailing edge, a leading edge, and a side wall connected to the leading edge, wherein the leading edge comprises a reflex curvature (Fig. 4b; shown below; noting the Examiner interprets “blade” to require that the dimple to have a “trailing edge and leading edge present” as claimed, and interprets “reflex curve” to mean that a “s-shaped curve” is present, consistent with applicant’s par. [0036] of the specification; also noting that the “side wall” and “leading edge” can be one in the same, as par. [0028] makes obvious that sidewalls/perimeter lines 36 are raised if the arms/blades are “concave” as they “agitate the airflow over the dimples”); and a blade junction at the dimple center connecting each leading edge of each blade at a shared location (Fig. 4b, item 30 below). It is noted that the species in Fig. 4b does not specifically disclose that the location is a point. However, the species in Fig. 4a and pars. [0028] clearly disclose that a “point” location may be used over a “hub” location. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sullivan: Fig. 4b to use a central point as opposed to a central hub as taught by Fig. 4a because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a central dimple point) for another (a central dimple hub) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to have blade project from a central dimple location, the central dimple location being a point).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan discloses that the number of blades in the dimple is in a range inclusive from 3-8 (Fig. 4b above; noting 6).
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan discloses that the at least one of the dimples comprises
a plurality of dimples (Fig. 3 in combination with Fig. 4b; noting based on Fig. 3, it would be obvious to use a plurality of dimples).
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan discloses that the plurality of dimples comprises 92-250 dimples (par. [0006]; noting 300 to 500 are disclosed, and noting “comprising” is specifically interpreted as open ended, so the disclosed range makes obvious the claimed range; emphasis added).
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan discloses that the plurality of dimples comprises a first dimple subset and a second dimple subset that comprise a different number of blades than the first dimple subset (Figs. 3a, 3c, 3d; noting a different embodiment, but still obvious; noting it would have been obvious to a POSA that dimples such as 4b could be used utilizing a different amount of number of fan blades or “arms”; see also Fig. 4b having 6 blades or arms, and Fig. 4b having 7 blades or arms; see specifically par. [0026]; noting “any number of arms can be distributed within a single dimple as illustrated”).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan discloses that the plurality of dimples comprises at least 152 fan-shaped dimples, including some three-blade dimples and some five-blade dimples (Fig. 3c and 3a; noting different embodiments but still obvious; noting 3c shows three blade, and 3a shows five blade, and par. [0006] making obvious 300 to 500 total dimples, as such the claimed range for the number of dimples being obvious).
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan discloses that an inflection point of the reflex curvature is at a midpoint of the side wall (see Fig. 4b above).
Claim 2, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sullivan (US Pub. No. 2002/0165044 A1) in view of Veilleux et al. (herein “Veilleux”; US Pub. No. 2005/0043119 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan discloses that the each side wall of each blade meets at the blade junction (Fig. 4b above, item 30 being the blade junction, and Fig. 4a making obvious that it can be a point; also noting the “side walls” can be synonymous with the “leading edge”) It is noted that Sullivan does not specifically disclose that each side wall has a height of zero at the blade junction. However, Sullivan clearly discloses that the central hub, aka the blade junction, can be below the surface (par. [0027]). In addition, Veilleux discloses a dimple wherein each side wall has a height of zero at the blade junction (Figs. 20/24 and/or Figs. 23/27). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sullivan to make each side wall having a height of zero at the blade junction as taught by Veilleux because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a dimple with a blade junction below the ball surface, and a dimple with a blade junction wherein the side walls equal zero) according to known methods (having the blade junction be the deepest part of the dimple so that the side wall heigh is zero) to yield predictable results (making the blade junction the deepest part of the dimple so that the side wall height is zero, the depth at the central location known to work for dimples).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan discloses a golf ball (Fig. 3 being exemplary) comprising a plurality of dimples (Fig. 3 being exemplary), each of the plurality of dimples comprising: a plurality of asymmetrical blades connected about a dimple center (Fig. 4b above, item 30 being the center; noting the blades are asymmetric because they are not mirror symmetric about a center line), wherein each blade comprises a trailing edge, a leading edge, a side wall connected to the leading edge, and a blade tip connecting the leading edge to the trailing edge at a distal end of the blade, wherein the leading edge comprises a reflex curvature (Fig. 4b; shown above; noting the Examiner interprets “blade” to require that the dimple to have a “trailing edge and leading edge present” as claimed, and interprets “reflex curve” to mean that a “s-shaped curve” is present, consistent with applicant’s par. [0036] of the specification; also noting that the “side wall” and “leading edge” can be one in the same, as par. [0028] makes obvious that sidewalls/perimeter lines 36 are raised if the arms/blades are “concave” as they “agitate the airflow over the dimples”); and a blade junction at the dimple center connecting each leading edge of each blade at a shared location (Fig. 4b, item 30 above) each side wall of each blade meets at the blade junction (Fig. 4b above). It is noted that the species in Fig. 4b does not specifically disclose that the location is a point. However, the species in Fig. 4a and pars. [0028] clearly disclose that a “point” may be used over a “hub”. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sullivan: Fig. 4b to use a central point as opposed to a central hub as taught by Fig. 4a because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a central point) for another (a central hub) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to have blade project from a central location, the central location being a point). Finally, it is noted that Sullivan does not specifically disclose that each side wall of each blade meets and has a height of zero at the blade junction. However, Sullivan clearly discloses that the central hub, aka the blade junction, can be below the surface (par. [0027]). In addition, Veilleux discloses a dimple wherein each side wall has a height of zero at the blade junction (Figs. 20/24 and/or Figs. 23/27). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sullivan to make each side wall having a height of zero at the blade junction as taught by Veilleux because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a dimple with a blade junction below the ball surface, and a dimple with a blade junction wherein the side walls equal zero) according to known methods (having the blade junction be the deepest part of the dimple so that the side wall heigh is zero) to yield predictable results (making the blade junction the deepest part of the dimple so that the side wall height is zero, the depth at the central location known to work for dimples).
Regarding claim 20, the combined Sullivan and Veilleux disclose that the plurality of dimples comprises a first dimple subset and a second dimple subset that comprise a different number of blades than the first dimple subset (Sullivan: Figs. 3a, 3c, 3d; noting a different embodiment, but still obvious; noting it would have been obvious to a POSA that dimples such as 4b could be used utilizing a different amount of number of fan blades or “arms”; see also Fig. 4b having 6 blades or arms, and Fig. 4b having 7 blades or arms; see specifically par. [0026]; noting “any number of arms can be distributed within a single dimple as illustrated”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sullivan (US Pub. No. 2002/0165044 A1) as evidenced by Aoyama (US Pat. No. 6,162,136).
Regarding claim 8, in the alternative, it is noted that Sullivan does not specifically disclose that the plurality of dimples comprises 92-250 dimples. However, Sullivan generally discloses the use of 300 to 500 dimples (par. [0006]). In addition, regarding the exact number of dimples, it has been held that 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). Furthermore, to support the Examiner’s assertion that the number of dimples is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Aoyama which specifically states that the number of dimples is a result-effective variable used to optimize the aerodynamics of the golf ball (see col. 1, line 59 to col. 2, line 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact number of dimples used could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize the desire aerodynamic performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are allowed. Claim 3 was previously indicated at allowable. Applicant has amended claim 3 to include the limitations of both previous claim 1 and intervening claim 2. As such, claim 3 is now in the condition for allowance.
Claims 18 and 19 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. The prior art of record does not make obvious the limitations of claims 18 or 19. For claim 18, the prior art does not make obvious that “the plurality of dimples are arranged on the golf ball such that each dimple has a number of blades equal to its number of neighboring dimples, and each blade tip lies approximately along a great circle arc connecting the dimple's center to the center of a neighboring dimple”. For claim 19, the prior does not make obvious that “the plurality of dimples are arranged on the golf ball such that each blade nests into a recess between adjacent blades of a neighboring dimple”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 6-10, 16, 17, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the record, the Examiner does not import any limitations from the specification into the claims. Rather, the Examiner takes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
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 Matthew Stanczak whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 8:30 to 3:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
3/16/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711