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
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) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nesbitt et al. (6,450,898) in view of Ko et al. (2013/0285287). Claim 1, Nesbitt discloses a golf ball comprising a core (10) comprising at least one radar detectable component (inner core 20), the core (10) defining a radially outermost surface and the at least one radar detectable component (inner core 20) being radially inward from the radially outermost surface such that a gap is defined between the radially outermost surface of the core (10) and the at least one radar detectable component (inner core 20); and a cover (16) disposed around the core (fig 2). The radar detectable component (inner core 20) includes large amounts metal filler such as tungsten, which is radar detectable (table 2; col 25, lines 25-40) (see applicant’s [0048] for tungsten as the radar detectable option). Nesbitt does not disclose an off centered core. Ko teaches cores may become off centered during manufacturing [0088, 0102]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have an off centered core through the manufacturing process. Claim 2, the at least one radar detectable component (inner core 20) is comprised of a polybutadiene composition (same as base rubber composition and a secondary rubber composition) (col. 16, lines 11-16, the polybutadiene) including a radar reflective additive (tungsten) (table 2). Claim 3, the base rubber composition and the secondary rubber composition are simultaneously co-molded with each other is a method step that does not further limit the claim. Claim 5, the at least one radar detectable component (inner core 20) is comprised of at least one radar reflective body (tungsten) that is embedded within a base rubber material of the core (10). Claim 6, the at least one radar reflective body (tungsten) includes at least one metallic body (tungsten table 2). The metals may be circular (see dots in fig 2) Claim 7, the at least one radar reflective body (tungsten) includes a plurality of radar reflective bodies (tungsten powder table 2). Claim 8, the plurality of radar reflective bodies (tungsten) is comprised of a first radar reflective body arranged at a first radial depth within the core and a second radar reflective body arranged at a second radial depth within the core, and the first and second radial depths are different (tungsten powder is throughout the core and located at different depths). Claim 9, further comprising at least one layer (14) disposed between the core and the cover (fig 2). Claim 10, the at least one radar detectable component (inner core 20) is not a printed radar detectable component and is not an ink-based radar detectable component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have an off centered core through the manufacturing process.
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
October 2, 2026
