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, “a centroid of at least one dimple among the subset of preferred polar dimples is coincident with a spherical edge defined between adjacent spherical triangles” of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (emphasis added). 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 § 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 1-20 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, line 6 and claim 12, line 7 claims “wherein the dimple patter has at most first order rotational symmetry”. The phrase “first order rotational symmetry” is indefinite because the language has no plain meaning, no special definition within the specification, and no technical meaning/definition to a POSA. Restated, the Examiner does not understand what it means to be “first order”. Pars. [0069]-[0070] of the specification use the phrase “first order”. However, they do not accurately describe what it means to have “at most first order rotational symmetry” as it relates to the dimple pattern. And even if they did, the Examiner would not import that described limitation from the specification into the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sajima (US Pat. No. 6,540,625 B2) as evidenced by Simonds et al. (herein “Simonds”; US Pub. No. 2003/0153402 A1) and in further view of Hwang et al. (herein “Hwang”; US Pub. No. 2013/0288827 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sajima discloses a golf ball (Figs. 1 and 2 below) having an outer surface comprising a plurality of dimples disposed thereon that define a dimple pattern (Figs. 1 and 2 below), the golf ball being segmented into a first hemisphere and a second hemisphere (Fig. 7; item O” clearly showing imaginary segmentation into a first and second hemisphere; noting they are not physically segmented into two different pieces), each of the first and second hemispheres being defined by a plurality of zones (Figs. 7, 1, and 2; noting a “zone” can merely be half of each hemisphere; the Examiner noting that these zones are imaginary), and each zone being segmented into a plurality of spherical triangles each having a distinct dimple configuration (Fig. 1; noting a zone may be a half of each hemisphere, so triangles T1 and T2 for one zone, T3 and T4 for another zone; Fig. 2; noting T5 and T6 for another zone, and T7 and T8 for another zone; each spherical triangle has a “distinct dimple configuration” because those physical dimples are only found in the corresponding spherical triangle; restated, the Examiner does not construe “distinct” to necessarily mean a different dimple layout; the Examiner also noting that these spherical triangles are imaginary and are not physically present on the golf ball; alternatively, each quadrant may be a zone, see rejection of claim 10 below for details), wherein the dimple pattern has at most first order rotational symmetry about any axis of the golf ball (see 112(b) above, noting it is completely unclear what this limitation means; however, see Sajima entire specification; noting there does not appear to be any symmetry whatsoever), and wherein the first and second hemispheres each include a subset of preferred polar dimples having dimple diameter and a respective centroid positioned longitudinally apart from each other and at a common latitude (see Figs 1 and 2 below; noting this is obvious), wherein the common latitude is defined at a polar latitude angle (Θ) from a nearest respective pole of the first and second hemispheres, and the polar latitude angle (Θ) is no greater than 30 degrees (Figs. 1 and 2 below; noting this is obvious, as the “subset of preferred dimples” are only one dimple off the pole; much like applicant’s Fig. 5C; and the preferred dimples are clearly positioned within the first 1/3 or 30 degrees off the pole of the golf ball). It is noted that Sajima does not specifically disclose that the subset of preferred dimples are identical and spaced 120 degrees apart. However, Sajima appears to show that the subset of preferred dimples are identical and are spaced 120 degrees apart (Figs. 1 and 2 below). In addition, Sajima would also inherently have some retractable mold pins used to create the “preferred dimples”, although the reference is silent on their exact location (col. 10, lines 21-32; Sajima clearly disclosing “injection molding” of the outer cover, and see Simonds: Figs. 26 and 27 and pars. [0205]-[0206] clearly evidencing that injection molding uses retractable mold pins that retract to create the “preferred dimples”). Finally, Hwang discloses a golf ball dimple pattern wherein the subset of preferred dimples are identical and spaced 120 degrees apart (Fig. 6, items 41, 42, and 43 and par. [0047]; noting they would inherently be 120 degrees apart based on position). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sajima to make the dimples identical and spaced 120 degrees apart as taught by Hwang because doing so would be use of a known technique (using retractable pins that also act as vent pins on three identical dimples positioned 120 degrees around the pole) to improve a similar product (a golf ball that appears to have three identical dimples positioned 120 degrees around a pole) in the same way (using retractable pins that also act as vent pins on three identical dimples positioned 120 degrees around the pole, the pins allowing air to vent from the injection mold cavity and the pins allowing the core to be positioned at the center during injection molding of the outer cover).
PNG
media_image1.png
1120
1599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 14, it is noted that the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that the polar latitude angle (Θ) is no greater than 25 degrees. However, regarding the exact polar latitude of the preferred dimples, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(see applicant’s spec, par. [00113]; applicant giving no criticality for the exact latitude within the disclosed range of 30 degrees). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact polar latitude of the preferred dimples would not make the invention perform differently: that is, the preferred dimple locations would functional as retractable pin and vent locations regardless of their exact polar latitude.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, it is noted that the combined Sajima and Hwang do not specifically disclose that the polar latitude angle (Θ) is no greater than 20 degrees. However, regarding the exact polar latitude of the preferred dimples, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)( see applicant’s spec, par. [00113]; applicant giving no criticality for the exact latitude within the disclosed range of 30 degrees). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact polar latitude of the preferred dimples would not make the invention perform differently: that is, the preferred dimple locations would functional as retractable pin and vent locations regardless of their exact polar latitude.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, it is noted that the combined Sajima and Hwang do not specifically disclose that the polar latitude angle (Θ) is no greater than 10 degrees. However, regarding the exact polar latitude, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(see applicant’s spec, par. [00113]; applicant giving no criticality for the exact latitude within the disclosed range of 30 degrees). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact polar latitude of the preferred dimples would not make the invention perform differently: that is, the preferred dimple locations would functional as retractable pin and vent locations regardless of their exact polar latitude.
Regarding claim 5, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose a centroid of at least one dimple of the subset of preferred polar dimples is non-coincident with a spherical edge defined between adjacent zones, and a centroid of at least one dimple among the subset of preferred polar dimples is non-coincident with a spherical edge defined between adjacent spherical triangles (Sajima: Figs. 1 and 2 above; noting all the preferred dimples centroids are located off the spherical edges). It is noted that the combined Sajima and Hwang do not specifically disclose that a centroid of at least one dimple is coincident with a spherical edge. However, the Examiner notes on the record that the spherical edge is actual imaginary in nature. In addition, regarding the exact location of the dimple centroid as compared to the spherical edge, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts is not patentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)(see applicant’s spec, par. [00116]; applicant giving no criticality to the exact structure and also noting this is not even shown in the drawings). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that placing a centroid of the dimple on an imaginary spherical edge would not modify the operation of the device: that is, the preferred dimples would still represent dimple locations with retracing pins regardless of their exact location as compared to the spherical triangle edges.
Regarding claim 6, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that the dimple pattern lacks any dimple having a centroid that is coincident with a polar axis of the golf ball (Sajima: Figs. 1 and 2 above, and Hwang: Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, it is noted that the combined Sajima and Hwang do not specifically disclose that dimple diameter of the dimples of the subset of preferred polar dimples is not a minimum dimple diameter among the plurality of dimples and is not a maximum dimple diameter among the plurality of dimples. However, Sajima appears to show that the preferred dimples are either a maximum size or a one size below the maximum size (Figs. 1 and 2 above; noting from Fig. 3, they appear to be dimple “A”; the maximum size). In addition, Sajama clearly discloses that the exact dimple number, type, and placement can be changed with each spherical triangle (col. 9, lines 28-43). Finally, regarding using a dimple size other than the maximum or minimum dimple size, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).(see applicant’s spec, par. [00110]; specifically stating that the preferred dimples “can have a maximum or minimum dimple diameter”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that making the preferred dimples to have the maximum dimple diameter would not make the device perform differently: that is, the preferred dimples would still represent dimple locations with retracing pins regardless of their exact size as compared to the other dimples.
Regarding claim 8, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that at least one additional polar dimple is disposed closer to the poles of the first and second hemispheres than the dimples of the subset of preferred polar dimples (Sajima: Figs. 1 and 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the combined Sajima and Hwang do not specifically disclose that the at least one additional polar dimple has a larger dimple diameter than the dimple diameters of the subset of preferred polar dimples. However, Sajima appears to show that the preferred dimples are either a maximum size or a one size below the maximum size and a dimple having a smaller size is positioned between it and the pole (Figs. 1 and 2 above; noting from Fig. 3, they appear to be dimple “A”; the maximum size). In addition, Sajima clearly discloses that the exact dimple number, type, and placement can be changed with each spherical triangle (col. 9, lines 28-43). Finally, regarding using a dimple size larger than the preferred dimple size, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).(see applicant’s spec, par. [00110]; specifically stating that the preferred dimples “can have a maximum or minimum dimple diameter”, and see par. [0032] giving no criticality to the exact size of the dimple located between the preferred dimple and the pole). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that making the dimple between the preferred dimple and the pole to be a dimple with a larger diameter would not make the device perform differently: that is, the preferred dimples would still have a dimple between it and the pole regardless of the exact size of the adjacent dimple as compared to the preferred dimple.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that the zones are comprised of first zones, second zones, third zones, and fourth zones (Sajima: Figs. 1 and 2; noting each of the larger spherical triangle may be considered a “zone”’ so there are four total for each hemisphere), such that the first and second hemispheres each consist of one first zone, one second zone, one third zone, and one fourth zone (Sajima: Fig. 1, noting T1-T4, and Fig. 2; noting T5-T8), wherein the first zone consists of three spherical triangles including at least one first spherical triangle and at least one second spherical triangle (Sajima: Fig. 3 see below; noting this is exemplary for each spherical triangle disclosed by Sajima; the Examiner specifically noting that these “spherical triangles” are imaginary and are not physically present on the golf ball), the second zone consists of three spherical triangles including at least one first spherical triangle and at least one third spherical triangle (Sajima: Fig. 3 see below; noting this is exemplary for each spherical triangle disclosed by Sajima; the Examiner specifically noting that these “spherical triangles” are imaginary and are not physically present on the golf ball; see specifically Fig. 4 making obvious eh “second zone”), and the third zone and the fourth zone each consist of three spherical triangles including a fourth spherical triangle, a fifth spherical triangle, and a sixth spherical triangle (Sajima: Fig. 3 see below; noting this is exemplary for each spherical triangle disclosed by Sajima; the Examiner specifically noting that these “spherical triangles” are imaginary and are not physically present on the golf ball, see specifically Figs. 5 and 6 making obvious a “third and fourth zone”).
PNG
media_image2.png
766
1000
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that a first subset of the spherical triangles has a dimple configuration having mirror symmetry about a respective symmetry plane (Sajima: Fig. 3 above; noting a “first subset” is dimples A and B in the 1st triangle, produced in mirror symmetry about the line) , and a second subset of the spherical triangles has a dimple configuration lacking mirror symmetry about any intersecting plane to the respective spherical triangle (Sajima: Fig. 3 above; noting dimples A in the 2nd triangle not having mirror symmetry; and/or the “B” dimple following dimples A also noting having mirror symmetry).
Regarding claim 12, Sajima discloses a golf ball (Figs. 1 and 2 above) having an outer surface comprising a plurality of dimples disposed thereon that define a dimple pattern (Figs. 1 and 2 above), the golf ball being segmented into a first hemisphere and a second hemisphere (Fig. 7; item O” clearly showing imaginary segmentation into a first and second hemisphere; noting they are not physically segmented into two different pieces), each of the first and second hemispheres being defined by a plurality of zones of a first quantity (Figs. 7, 1, and 2; noting a noting a zone can be equal to a quadrant, or ¼ of each hemisphere; noting as such the first quantity is 4), and each zone being segmented into a plurality of spherical triangles each having a distinct dimple configuration (Fig 3 reproduced above being exemplary of each “zone” or larger spherical triangle, each of the three lesser included spherical triangle has a “distinct dimple configuration” because those physical dimples are only found in the corresponding lesser spherical triangle; restated, the Examiner does not construe “distinct” to necessarily mean a different dimple layout; the Examiner also noting that these lesser spherical triangles and zones are imaginary and are not physically present on the golf ball), the dimple pattern having at most first order rotational symmetry about any axis of the golf ball (see 112(b) above, noting it is completely unclear what this limitation means; however, see entire Sajima specification; noting there does not appear to be any symmetry whatsoever), and wherein the first and second hemispheres each include a subset of preferred polar dimples of a second quantity (see Figs 1 and 2 above; noting this is obvious; noting as such the second quantity is 3), the dimples of the subset of preferred polar dimples each having an dimple diameter and a respective centroid positioned longitudinally apart from each other and at a common latitude at a polar latitude angle (Θ) from a nearest respective pole of the first and second hemispheres (see Figs 1 and 2 above; noting this is obvious); wherein the first and second quantities are not identical (Figs. 1 and 2 above, and rejection above; noting the number of zones can be four, and the number preferred dimples is three). It is noted that Sajima does not specifically disclose that the subset of preferred dimples are identical and spaced equidistant apart. However, Sajima appears to show that the subset of preferred dimples are identical and are spaced equidistant apart (Figs. 1 and 2 above). In addition, Sajima would also inherently have some retractable mold pins used to create the “preferred dimples”, although the reference is silent on their exact location (col. 10, lines 21-32; Sajima clearly disclosing “injection molding” of the outer cover, and see Simonds: Figs. 26 and 27 and pars. [0205]-[0206] clearly evidencing that injection molding uses retractable mold pins that retract to create the “preferred dimples”). Finally, Hwang discloses a golf ball dimple pattern wherein the subset of preferred dimples are identical and spaced equidistant apart (Fig. 6, items 41, 42, and 43 and par. [0047]; noting they would inherently be equidistant based on position). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sajima to make the dimples identical and spaced equidistant apart as taught by Hwang because doing so would be use of a known technique (using retractable mold pins that also act as vent pins on three identical dimples positioned equidistant around the pole) to improve a similar product (a golf ball that appears to have three identical dimples positioned equidistant around a pole) in the same way (using retractable mold pins that also act as vent pins on three identical dimples positioned equidistant around the pole, the pins allowing air to vent from the injection mold cavity and pins allowing the core to be positioned centrally within the mold during injection molding).
Regarding claim 13, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that the polar latitude angle (Θ) is no greater than 30 degrees (Sajima: Figs. 1 and 2 above; noting this is obvious, as the “subset of preferred dimples” are only one dimple off the pole; much like applicant’s Fig. 5C, and the preferred dimples are clearly positioned within the first 1/3 or 30 degrees off the pole of the golf ball).
Regarding claim 17, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that the first quantity and the second quantity are each at least three (Sajima: Figs 1 and 2 above, and rejection of claim 12 above; noting the first quantity is 4 and the second quantity is 3).
Regarding claim 18, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that the first quantity equals four, and the second quantity equals three (Sajima: Figs 1 and 2 above, and rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 19, the combined Sajima and Hwang disclose that the first quantity is greater than the second quantity (Sajima: Figs 1 and 2 above, and rejection of claim 12 above; noting the first quantity is 4 and the second quantity is 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
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
3/10/26