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 .
Claims 1,2, and 6 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.
The phrase “the intermediate layer-encases sphere” (cl 1:10-11) is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not it is related to the heat-treated intermediate layer-encased sphere of cl 1:7-9. If they are related, it should be clearly and positively recited as such.
Correction is required.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2004159840 (English machine translation provided herewith).
1. (Currently Amended) A method for manufacturing a golf ball including a core, at least one intermediate layer, and a cover, the core being formed of a rubber material, the intermediate layer being formed of a resin composition, and the cover being formed of a urethane resin material (JP2004159840: [0013,0019-0021,0024-0026]; fig 1; core 1; intermediate layer 2; cover 3), the method comprising:
a step (1) of forming an intermediate layer-encased sphere by encasing the core with the at least one intermediate layer (JP2004159840: [0019-0021,0024]; fig 1; intermediate layer 2 is injection molded around the core 1);
a step (2) of subjecting the intermediate layer-encased sphere to a heat treatment at a temperature of at least a melting point of a base resin of the resin composition of the intermediate layer and less than 1600C (JP2004159840: [0019-0021,0024-0026]; fig 1; intermediate layer 2 is subjected to a heat treatment, wherein the temperature is 40C-80C); and
a step (3) of thereafter forming a cover-encased sphere by encasing the intermediate layer-encased sphere with the cover, wherein in the step (1), the intermediate layer encased sphere is formed by injection molding the resin composition of the intermediate layer around the core (JP2004159840: [0019-0021,0024]; fig 1; intermediate layer 2 is injection molded around the core 1), and in the step (2), a time of the heat treatment on the intermediate layer-encased sphere is from 20 to 30 minutes (JP2004159840: [0019-0021,0024-0026]; fig 1; intermediate layer 2 is subjected to a heat treatment, wherein the time is 20 mins to 30 mins).
6. (Original) The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the base resin of the resin composition of the intermediate layer is an ionomer resin (JP2004159840: [0019-0021,0024]; fig 1; intermediate layer 2 is made from an ionomer resin).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2004159840 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nagasawa et al (US2008/0217810). The above teachings of JP2004159840 are incorporated hereinafter.
JP2004159840 does not teach the heat treatment temperature of 90 to 150C, but does teach a heat treatment temperature of 100C in comparative example 5. Nagasawa et al teach subjecting a layer of a golf ball to a heat treatment, wherein the temperature is 80C ([0063]), but Nagasawa et al also teach the exact temperature of the heat treatment can be optimized to achieve desired properties of the layer (Nagasawa et al: [0062-0063]). Since JP2004159840 teaches a 100C heat treatment temperature and Nagasawa et al teach the heat treatment temperature is an optimizable variable/result-effective variable dependent on the desired properties of the layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the heat treatment temperature of JP2004159840 to 100C to achieve a desired property of the intermediate layer.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,2 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach subjecting an intermediate layer of a golf ball to heat: JP2004305426 and JP4214003.
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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights