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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, from which Claim 16 depends, provides that the zones consist of a plurality of spherical triangles, which may be as few as two spherical triangles. It follows that five of the six distinct spherical triangles may be absent from the ball. The limitations of Claim 16 specifying positioning of spherical triangles is unclear as to whether the provisions of Claim 1 are contradicted. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madson et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0161097. As to Claim 1, Madson teaches a golf ball having an outer surface comprising a plurality of dimples disposed thereon that define a dimple pattern, paragraph 0028, noting a tetrahedral layout. The golf ball may be segmented via an equatorial plane and a first plane and a second plane, each being orthogonal to the equatorial plane and to each other, such that four zones define a first hemisphere and four zones define a second hemisphere, paragraph 0028 and see Figure 5, noting each hemisphere divided into four zones. The examiner finds that the zones may be considered to be first through fourth zones, with each hemisphere consisting of one of each of the numbered zones. Further, the examiner finds that a plurality of spherical triangles may be considered to exist and that the plurality of spherical triangles may comprise first through sixth spherical triangles each having a distinct dimple configuration. A first subset of the plurality of spherical triangles may be considered to have a dimple configuration with mirror symmetry about a respective symmetry plane and a second subset of the plurality of spherical triangles may be considered to have a dimple configuration lacking mirror symmetry about any intersecting plane to the respective spherical triangle. Madson teaches that the zones may consist of a plurality of spherical triangles, see drawing below.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 5, Madson teaches three spherical triangles disposed along a line encircling the ball, which may be considered to be the equatorial line, noting the three upper designated spherical triangles. The center one of the three exhibits a distinct configuration from the other two, such that the spherical triangles may be considered to be first and fourth spherical triangles. As to Claim 6, Madson teaches that the first and fourth spherical triangles may each have a dimple configuration with mirror symmetry about a respective symmetry plane, see drawing below, with dotted lines showing planes of mirror symmetry.
PNG
media_image2.png
573
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madson, ‘097 in view of Madson et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0050722. Madson, ‘097, substantially shows the claim limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 2, Madson, ‘097 teaches that the zones may consist of three spherical triangles, noting that in the drawing above, lines may be drawn from adjacent the “D” dimple in the center of the middle spherical triangle to each vertex of the zone to establish three spherical triangles together comprising the zone. Madson, ‘097, does not teach that the three spherical triangles may be configured such that at least one first and at least one second spherical triangle may be present, noting that at least one of the three spherical triangles must exhibit a different dimple configuration. Madson, ‘722, teaches that a zone may consist of three spherical triangles with one spherical triangle having a different dimple pattern, see drawing below. The examiner finds that first, second, third, and fourth zones may be considered to be similarly arranged, with the spherical triangles of the first zone being considered to represent first and second spherical triangles. The second zone may include a same spherical triangle being considered to be a first spherical triangle and at least one other spherical triangle considered to be a third spherical triangle. The third and fourth zones may each consist of three other spherical triangles considered to be fourth, fifth, and sixth spherical triangles. The spherical triangles may exhibit mirror symmetry, as claimed, except that the inclusion of at least one of all six spherical triangles requires that at least one spherical triangle must differ as to mirror symmetry, see drawing below, noting one of the three spherical triangles having mirror symmetry denoted by the dotted line. The examiner notes that first and second subsets of spherical triangles would require that one to five of the six spherical triangles must have mirror symmetry and one to five of the six spherical triangles must not have mirror symmetry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Madson, ‘097, with four zones, each consisting of three spherical triangles wherein at least one having a different configuration, as taught by Madson,’722, to provide Madson, ‘097, with a known substitute dimple pattern. Madson, ‘097, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing, as to the second, third, and fourth zones, distinct dimple configurations as to the three spherical triangles in the zones. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to alter the arrangement of dimples in the third spherical triangle of the second zone and to alter the arrangement of dimples in the fourth, fifth, and sixth spherical triangles, to the extent necessary to establish distinct configurations in each, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
PNG
media_image3.png
557
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3, Madson, ‘722, teaches that the first zone may include a single first spherical triangle (lower triangle in drawing above) and two second spherical triangles (upper two same triangles in drawing above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the three spherical triangles of a first zone, as claimed and as taught by Madson, ‘722, to provide Madson, ‘097, as modified, with a known substitute zone configuration. As to Claim 4, Madson, ‘722, is applied as in Claim 3, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Madson, ‘097, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for disclosing that the two same spherical triangles may be arranged to exhibit a difference such that the third spherical triangles may be considered to be distinct from the second spherical triangles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to alter the arrangement of dimples in the third spherical triangle of the second zone, to the extent necessary to establish distinct configurations in each, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra. As to Claim 8, Madson, ‘722, teaches that spherical triangles lacking mirror symmetry may be disposed so as to share a vertex and meeting edges of a zone, which may be considered to represent a polar axis, see drawing above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the zones with spherical triangles lacking mirror symmetry disposed adjacent a polar axis as taught by Madson, ‘722, to provide Madson, ‘097, with a known substitute dimple pattern. Madson, ‘097, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for arranging the polar spherical triangles to the extent necessary to exhibit distinct patterns in second, third, fifth, and sixth spherical triangles, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra. As to Claim 18, Madson, ‘722, suggests that a zone may be rotationally asymmetric about an axis passing through a golf ball centroid and a respective geometric face of the zone, see Figure 4A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a zone as claimed and as suggested by Madson, ‘722, to provide Madson, ‘097, with a known substitute dimple pattern. Madson, ‘079, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the asymmetric character may be duplicated in second, third, and fourth zones. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a duplicate asymmetric characteristic to the second, third, and fourth zones, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., supra. As to Claim 19, Madson, ‘722, teaches that the ball may be configured so as to lack any dimple free great circle, paragraph 0031. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the ball so as to lack any dimple free great circle, as taught by Madson, ‘722, to provide Madson, ‘097 with a known substitute dimple pattern characteristic.
Claim(s) 7, 9-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madson. Madson substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 7, the examiner notes that the plurality of spherical triangles comprises first through sixth distinct spherical triangles with a first subset having mirror symmetry, as claimed, and a second subset lacking mirror symmetry, as claimed, all as discussed above. It follows that at least one spherical triangle and as many as five spherical triangles may belong to the first subset and a complementary number of spherical triangles may belong to the second subset, suggesting that the remaining spherical triangles, numbering four, may lack mirror symmetry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the second, third, fifth , and sixth spherical triangles to lack mirror symmetry, as suggested. As to Claim 9, Madson, ‘097, teaches that four spherical triangles of generally the same size may occupy a zone, see drawing above. Madson, ‘097, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the six spherical triangles may be of the same size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the six spherical triangles with identical size relative to each other, since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As to Claim 10, Madson, ‘097, teaches that a first zone and a second zone may have distinct dimple patterns from each other, see Figure 5, noting adjacent zones having distinct patterns. Madson, ‘097, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that four zones may each have distinct dimple patterns from each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide additional duplicate distinct zone dimple patterns, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8. As to Claim 11, Madson, ‘097, teaches that four identical dimple sections may be provided, paragraph 0030, suggesting that two identical sections may be provided in each hemisphere. Further, Madson, ‘097, teaches matched zones in alternating arrangement around a pole suggesting that first zones and second zones may be mirror symmetrical about a respective plane extending through a polar axis, see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide first zones and second zones with mirror symmetry about a respective plane extending through a polar axis as suggested.
PNG
media_image4.png
817
975
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 12, Madson, ‘097, as modified, is applied as in Claim 11. Further, the examiner finds that the zones of the hemisphere may be considered to be third zones and fourth zones. As to Claim 13, Madson, ‘097, teaches zones having dimple patterns as discussed in the treatment of Claim 11. The ball must rotated 180 degrees in order to meet a point of symmetry, see Figure 5, suggesting that the dimple pattern may have at most a first order rotational symmetry about any axis of the ball. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide at most first order rotational symmetry, as suggested. As to Claims 14 and 15, Madson, ‘097, teaches that four identical dimple sections may be provided, paragraph 0030, suggesting that two identical sections may be provided in each hemisphere. Madson, ‘097, suggests that an additional two identical sections may also be provided in each hemisphere, see Figure 5. It follows that the first and second hemispheres may have mirror symmetry about first and second planes passing through the polar axis of the ball, see drawing above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Madson, ‘097, with first and second hemispheres having mirror symmetry about first and second planes passing through a polar axis of the ball, as suggested. As to Claim 16, Madson, ‘097, is applied as in Claim 2 with regard to the teaching of a zone comprising three spherical triangles. Each spherical triangle may be comprised of one external edge and two internal edges, as claimed and as taught by Madson, ‘097, see drawing above noting three spherical triangles comprising the zone. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute spherical triangles of the same size and shape but differently configured to an extent necessary to establish distinct spherical triangles, which may be considered to comprise first through sixth spherical triangles since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, supra. Claim 16 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 17, Madson, ‘097, is applied as in Claim 2, with regard to the division of the zone into three spherical triangles, noting that internal edges may be shorter than external edges. The examiner finds that the case law applied in Claim 16 is equally applicable with regard to spherical triangles being considered to be first through sixth spherical triangles. As to Claim 20, Madson, ‘097, suggests that a first pair of two like spherical triangles and a second pair of two like spherical triangles may share a common vertex, see drawing above, noting point where illustrated zone planes intersect being considered as a polar axis. The examiner finds that the two pairs of spherical triangles may be considered to comprise second and third spherical triangles or fifth and sixth spherical triangles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the dimple pattern with pairs to spherical triangles sharing a common vertex at a polar axis as suggested. Madson, ‘097, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that further pairs of spherical triangles may be arranged so as to differ to an extent necessary to establish distinct configurations such that a second set of pairs may be considered to be fifth and sixth spherical triangles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a second set of pairs of spherical triangles as claimed, since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (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 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 25 November 2025