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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worst (US 4,258,921) in view of Mello et al. (US 5,778,793)
With respect to claim 13, Worst teaches an in-process golf ball (10) comprising: at least one core layer; a cover surrounding the at least one core layer, the cover comprising a generally spherical surface (col. 4, lines 35-36); and an alignment aid portion (32, 34), the alignment aid portion comprising: a single stamp comprising a linear marking having a length dimension extending in a first circumferential direction printed on the surface of the cover and extending in a first circumferential direction around at least 90⁰ of a great circle of the in-process golf ball (color band 34), the stamp consisting of a main printed area and a transition printed area. (col. 4, lines 15-47, Fig. 2)
Worst does not explicitly teach wherein the transition printed area comprises a bracketed appearance at a first end forming a cavity, and a screened appearance within the cavity, the transition printed area comprises 5-85% of an ink density of the main printed area within the cavity, and the transition printed area of the stamp is positioned at a first end of the main printed area of the stamp and wherein a second end of the main printed area comprises an arrow shape.
Mello teaches a golf ball comprising a generally spherical surface and a single stamp printed on the surface consisting of a main printed area and a transition printed area comprising 5-85% of an ink density of the main printed area. (col. 3, lines 24-38, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Worst to include a gradient transition printed area, as taught by Mello, in order to provide a desirable appearance.
The further claims to the appearance of the printed marks do not add to the structure of the printed golf ball in any patentable way. As previously discussed: “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists.” (See MPEP 2111.05(I)B) The details of variations in appearance of the marks, including the amended claims to a “bracketed” appearance forming a “cavity” is a matter of an aesthetic design choice of printed matter which does not impact the claimed function and therefore these claimed limitations are not capable of patentably distinguishing the invention over the prior art. It should also be noted that these marks are not disclosed as being visible on the finished golf ball and therefore have no particular function as an alignment aid if they are not visible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed feature of an “alignment aid” is in functional relationship with a golf ball and therefore all claimed features should be given patentable weight. Applicant further argues that the combination of an “arrow” main printed area and a “bracketed” transition area enables the alignment aid to “produce combined markings that do not show evidence of being composed of multiple, separate stamps”, thereby enhancing the reliability of the alignment aid to be used for alignment in golf.
This is not persuasive because the method by which the markings are produced does not have an impact on the operability of the printed golf ball for its intended purpose. Additionally, in this case, applicant has not claimed a printed golf ball having alignment aids, but merely an “in process” golf ball, suggesting that the finished product would have a different appearance. Because the “in process” golf ball does not have the finished appearance of the golf ball, the claimed structure does not necessarily act as alignment aid, but merely as a printed surface which is to be further processed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853