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 .
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, the configuration of preferred polar dimples wherein dimples within the subset of preferred polar dimples have centroids not coincident with spherical edges and preferred polar dimples having centroids coincident with a mirror symmetry plane, but the dimple pattern maintains at most second order rotational symmetry about any axis if the ball must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 § 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) 1-5 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madson et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0050722, in view of Madson et al., U.S. Patent Application 2022/0161097. As to Claim 1, Madson, ‘722, teaches a golf ball having an outer surface comprising a plurality of dimples disposed thereon, that define a dimple pattern, paragraphs 0025 and 0026. The ball may be segmented into first and second hemispheres, paragraph 0026. Each hemisphere may be defined by a plurality of zones, see Figure 1, noting four zones in a hemisphere. Each hemisphere may be segmented into a plurality of spherical quadrilaterals, each having a distinct dimple configuration, paragraph 0128 and see drawing below. A hemisphere may include a subset of preferred polar dimples having identical dimple diameter, a respective centroid positioned longitudinally 90 degrees apart from each other, and a respective centroid positioned at a common latitude, paragraphs 0026, 0027, 0028, 0038, 0128, and see drawing below, noting side edge dimples (4 and 2) located above 30 degrees latitude, and having centroids positioned longitudinally 90 degrees apart. Madson, ‘722, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the dimple pattern may have at most second order rotational symmetry about any axis of the ball. Madson, ‘097, teaches a golf ball having a dimple pattern based on hemispheres divided into four zones, paragraph 0028, noting tetrahedral layout. The dimple arrangement may comprise four identical sections, paragraph 0063 and see Figure 4. The arrangement results in a pattern which can be divided into hemispheres, each have four equally sized spherical triangles, with two pairs of like spherical triangles in each hemisphere, see Figure 5. Members of each pair may face each other across a pole of the ball with members of the other pair set between, suggesting a pattern having at most second order rotational symmetry about any axis of the ball, see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the dimple pattern to have at most second order rotational symmetry about any axis of the ball, as suggested by Madson, ‘097, to provide Madson, ‘722, with a known substitute dimple arrangement characteristic.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 2 and 3, Madson, ‘722, teaches that a non-polar dimple, having minimum diameter (# 1), located in the polar region, may have a latitude less than 20 degrees, paragraph 0073. Madson, ‘722, teaches that side edge dimples (#4) may be above the minimum diameter dimple, suggesting that the polar latitude angle may be no greater than 25 degrees (20 degrees), see Figure 4B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the preferred polar dimples as suggested. As to Claim 4, Madson, ‘722, is applied, as in Claims 2 and 3 with regard to the polar latitude angle being less than 20 degrees. Madson, ‘722, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the polar angle may be no greater than 10 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the preferred polar dimples so as to provide a polar latitude angle no greater than 10 degrees, 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). As to Claim 5, Madson, ‘722, teaches dimples in the polar region (polar latitude angle no greater than 30 degrees) may include two side edge dimples (#4) and two side edge dimples (#2), which exhibit the claimed characteristics of preferred polar dimples, as discussed above. The examiner finds that the four dimples may be considered to be the subset of preferred polar dimples, having centroids coincident with a spherical edge defined between adjacent zones. As to Claim 8, Madson, ‘722, teaches a polar dimple (#2) having a centroid coincident with a polar axis of the ball, paragraph 0127. As to Claim 9, Madson, ‘722 teaches that the dimple pattern may lack any dimple having a centroid coincident with a polar axis, paragraph 0082. As to Claim 10, Madson, ‘722, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the diameter of dimples of the subset of preferred polar dimples may have a minimum diameter among the plurality of dimples. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to exchange the positions of the dimples #1 and #2 in the polar region, as depicted in Figure 4B, 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). As to Claims 11 and 12, Madson, ‘722, teaches that a polar dimple (#1) may be disposed closer to a pole of a first hemisphere than dimples of the subset of preferred polar dimples (#2), see Figure 4B. Madson, ‘722, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the polar dimple may not have a minimum dimple diameter among the plurality of dimples and may be larger than the dimples of the subset of preferred polar dimples. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to size the polar dimple to be larger than a minimum dimple diameter and larger than the subset of preferred polar dimples, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). As to Claim 13, Madson, ‘722, as modified, teaches two pairs of spherical triangular zones comprising hemispheres of a dimple pattern. A spherical triangular zone may be me segmented into quadrilaterals, as demonstrated in the drawing above. In addition, a line may be formed dividing the lower quadrilateral in two between a left quadrilateral and a right quadrilateral, the line being vertical and passing through the centroid of the middle #4 dimple. As to Claim 14, the examiner finds that the upper quadrilateral may be considered to be a first quadrilateral and the lower quadrilaterals may be considered to be second quadrilaterals. The first and second quadrilaterals may have distinct dimple configurations, see drawing above. A mirror symmetry plane may be considered to be represented by a vertical line descending through the center of each quadrilateral, to establish mirror symmetry of the first quadrilateral and given that the horizontal dividing line may be considered to represent two sides meeting at a relatively large obtuse angle, the second quadrilaterals may be considered to have mirror symmetry except for the negligible difference at the obtuse angle and the split #5 dimple on the lower row. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the dimples of the second quadrilaterals to exhibit mirror symmetry, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra. Madson, ‘722, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that third and fourth quadrilaterals may be similarly arranged. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide duplicate third and fourth quadrilaterals, 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 15, Madson, ‘722, as modified, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Madson, ‘722, teaches that each hemisphere may be defined by four zones, as noted above, being a first quantity of zones. A second quantity of preferred polar dimples, noting four, as discussed above may be identical to the first quantity. As to Claim 16, Madson, ‘722, is applied as in Claim 1. As to Claims 17 and 18, The first quantity and the second quantity may be at least three, noting four, as discussed above. As to Claim 19, Madson, ‘722, as modified, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claim 13, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 20, Madson, ‘722, as modified, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claim 14, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 2 December 2025