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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 13, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madson et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0050722. As to Claim 1, Madson teaches a golf ball having a plurality of dimples disposed on an outer surface to define a dimple pattern (arrangement), paragraph 0026. A first subset of four zones may define a first hemisphere and a second subset of four zones may define a second hemisphere, paragraph 0025, noting square dipyramids projected onto the spherical surface of the ball. The examiner finds that the ball may be considered to be segmented by an equatorial plane to form the hemispheres and a first plane and a second plane may be considered to exist in orthogonal relation to the equatorial plane and to each other, given the formation of the zones by square based dipyramids. Each hemisphere may be considered to have two first zones and two second zones. The first zone may consist of a plurality of spherical polyhedrons including at least one first spherical polyhedron and at least one second polyhedron, see drawing below. The second zone may consist of a plurality of spherical polyhedrons including at least one third spherical polyhedron and at least on forth spherical polyhedron, see drawing below, also considered to depict a second zone. The polyhedrons may have distinct dimple configurations and the dimple configurations may have mirror symmetry about a respective symmetry plane, see drawing below. Madson discloses the claimed invention except for configuring the polygons as a quadrilateral and a triangle instead of two quadrilaterals. The examiner finds that the line segment separating the two polygons may be considered to have a vertex of an obtuse angle at the center to define the upper polygon as a quadrilateral without disturbing the dimple pattern generated by the claim limitations, suggesting the inventive dimple pattern defined by two spherical quadrilaterals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the spherical polygons as two quadrilaterals defining the claimed dimple pattern, as suggested.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 2 and 3, Madson, as modified, teaches an upper spherical quadrilateral and further that the lower quadrilateral may be considered to be divided by a vertical line extending from the equator between the centered #5 dimples to the line dividing the first and second quadrilaterals, see drawing above, to produce two second or fourth quadrilaterals. As to Claim 4, Madson, as modified, teaches that the second and fourth spherical quadrilateral may be disposed along the equatorial plane, see drawing above. As to Claim 5, Madson, as modified, teaches that the first and third quadrilateral may each be disposed adjacent to a polar axis of the ball, see drawing above. As to Claim 8, Madson teaches that first and second zones may be mirror symmetrical about a respective plane extending through a polar axis of the ball, see drawing above, noting vertical line bisecting the depicted zone. As to Claim 13, Madson, as modified, teaches that the respective symmetry planes may extend through a centroid of a respective one of the first and second zones, see drawing above, noting the vertical line bisecting the first/second zone depicted in the drawing. As to Claim 15, Madson teaches that the ball may lack a dimple free great circle, paragraph 0031. As to Claim 16, Madson, as modified, teaches that the first, second, third, and fourth spherical quadrilaterals may each be an irregularly shaped polygon, see drawing above, noting that the third and fourth quadrilaterals may be considered to be counterparts of the first and second quadrilaterals respectively. As to Claim 17, Madson teaches that the dimple pattern may include 300 to 400 dimples, paragraph 0124. As to Claim 18, Madson teaches that the plurality of dimples may include dimples of at least three different diameters, paragraph 0128. As to Claim 19, Madson teaches that the plurality of dimples may include dimples of five different diameters, paragraph 0128. Madson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing a sixth different dimple diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a sixth different diameter dimple since it was known in the art that multiple different diameters may be provided on a golf ball. As to Claim 20, Madson, as modified, teaches four zones in each hemisphere established by projecting a square based dipyramid onto the spherical surface of the ball, as discussed above. Each hemisphere may comprise two first and two second zones, as also discussed above. Madson, as modified, is applied as in Claims 2 and 3, with regard to two second quadrilaterals in each zone. It follows that exactly two of the three spherical quadrilaterals of the first zones and exactly two of the three quadrilaterals of the second zones share a common vertex at a polar axis if the ball. As to Claim 21, Madson is applied as in Claims 2-5.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madson, in view of Engle et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0338780. Madson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 7, Madson, as modified, does not disclose that zones may have distinct dimple patterns. Engle teaches a golf ball (10) having a dimple pattern on the surface, paragraphs 0074 and 0135. The pattern may be developed by establishing first and second zones (14a, 14b ) wherein the first and second zones have distinct dimple patterns from each other, paragraphs 0136 and 0138 and see Figure 11M. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Madson, as modified, with first and second zones having distinct dimple patterns, as taught by Engle, to provide Madson, as modified, with a known substitute dimple pattern. As to Claim 9, Engle teaches that a first hemisphere may comprise four zones (domains) configured as spherical triangles, paragraph 0016 and see Figure 11M, suggesting that the dimple pattern may have at most a second order rotational symmetry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Madson, as modified, with the dimple pattern having at most second order rotational symmetry, as taught and suggested by Engle, to provide Madson, as modified, with a known substitute dimple pattern. As to Claim 10, Engle is applied as in Claim 9, noting that a polar axis (vertical axis in the view depicted in Figure 11M) would be defined by a first plane and a second plane considered to exist across the division between the zones (domains), as drawn. The examiner finds that the same obviousness rationale is found to be applicable. As to Claim 14, Engle teaches that the first and second zones may be rotationally symmetrical about an axis passing through a golf ball centroid and a respective geometric face of the first and second zones, see Figure 11M, noting that the left hand zone exhibits rotational symmetry about a point between the three centered “D” dimples and that the right hand zone exhibits rotational symmetry about a point in the center of the central “D” dimple. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Madson, as modified, with first and second zones having rotational symmetry, as claimed and as taught by Engle, to provide Madson, as modified, with a known substitute arrangement of dimples within zones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Madson teaches a dimple pattern comprising identical sections, the examiner maintains the position that Madson does not teach away from a dimple pattern similar to the disclosed pattern but not comprising identical sections, noting the absence of a recognition of any detrimental effect from sections which are not identical. In response to applicant’s argument that the illustration of a drawing from the Madson reference depicts a quadrilateral and a triangle rather than two quadrilaterals, the examiner maintains the position that the bottom boundary line of the generally triangular upper form may be altered to include an inflection so as to provide an obtuse angle, without substantially disturbing the dimple pattern and that the degree of alteration may differ between first and second zones such that four distinct quadrilaterals may be found to be present. The examiner notes that only a minor change in the overall arrangement of the dimples is required to support a finding that the patterns of the quadrilaterals are distinct and that the boundaries of the quadrilaterals are not physical features of the inventive golf ball.
In response to applicant’s argument that the dotted lines in the illustrated drawing appear to designate identical rather than distinct areas of the dimple pattern, the examiner maintains the position, with regard to Claim 1, that the dotted lines suggest a line of mirror symmetry in the two illustrated quadrilaterals, as described in the office action.
With regard to Claims 2-5, the examiner maintains the position that, without providing an additional drawing, the dotted line in the lower quadrilateral may be considered to be a boundary between two quadrilaterals situated along the equatorial plane, with an explanation as to where a line of mirror symmetry may be considered to exist within each of those quadrilaterals.
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not disclose the specific layout of quadrilaterals, the examiner maintains the position that the file does not include evidence of criticality attributable to the specifics of the claimed dimple layout and an insubstantial change in the dimple pattern of prior art would allow envisioning of quadrilateral boundaries meeting the claim limitations exactly and that a finding of obviousness is supported by prior art as applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11, and 12 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 16 March 2026