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
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) 1-10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (2001/0031668) in view of Bender et al. (8,979,645) and Sullivan et al. (2005/0250600). Claim 1, Sullivan’668 discloses a golf ball comprising a core including at least a first core layer and a second core layer, and a cover [0028], wherein the first core layer is arranged radially inward from the second core layer, the first core layer includes a hub (109) and a plurality of spokes (102) extending from the hub (insert fig 11a). Sullivan’668 discloses the inner core layer (hub) may have any number of spokes (102 fig 11a) but does not disclose at least 12 [0055]. Bender teaches a golf ball core comprising 12 spokes (fig 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have increased the number of spokes as an obvious design choice, Sullivan’668 discloses the number may be any number so long as they are symmetrical [0055]. Sullivan’668 discloses the inner and outer core layers may be made from polybutadiene or ionomers [0041]. The first core layer is formed from a first composition and the second core layer is formed from a second composition but does not disclose a difference between flexural modulus for the layers [0036]. Sullivan ‘600 teaches a first core layer formed from a first composition having a first flexural modulus, and the second core layer is formed from a second composition having a second flexural modulus, wherein the first flexural modulus is greater than the second flexural modulus [0075, 0077, 0078]. One of ordinary skill in the art would increase the flex modulus of the inner core for increased speed. Claim 2, the first core layer formed via three-dimensional printing method does not further limit the golf ball. Claim 3, Sullivan ‘668 discloses the plurality of spokes extends in a radial direction and circumferential direction away from the hub (fig 10c anchor in radial direction) [0049]. Claim 4, Sullivan ‘668 discloses the plurality of spokes each include at least one branch (fig 10c anchor) [0049]. Claim 5, Sullivan ‘668 discloses the at least one branch extends in a partially non-radial direction away from a respective one of the plurality of spokes (fig 10c anchor). Claim 6, Sullivan ‘668 discloses the at least one branch connected to each of the plurality of spokes (fig 10c anchor). Claim 7, Sullivan ‘668 discloses the hub (109) has a spherical profile (fig 11a). Claim 8, Sullivan ‘668 discloses the hub has a non-spherical profile (116) having a first quantity of sides and the first quantity of sides equals a second quantity of the plurality of spokes (fig 11c) [0050]. Claim 9, Sullivan ‘668 discloses each of the plurality of spokes is centered on a respective face of the sides of the hub (116) (fig 11c). Claim 10, Sullivan ‘600 teaches the second flexural modulus is no greater than 10% of the first flexural modulus. The first has a minimum of 25,000 psi and second has a maximum of 25,000 psi [0077-0078]. Claim 12, Sullivan’668 figure 11a and 11e illustrate spokes with a length at least two times greater than a thickness of the spokes. Claim 13, Sullivan’668 discloses the inner and outer core layers may be made from polybutadiene or ionomers [0041]. Claim 15, Sullivan’668 discloses figure 11c illustrating a hub (116) volume lower than the volume of the spokes (118). Claim 17, Sullivan’668 discloses the plurality of spokes each have a cylindrical profile (fig 11a). One of ordinary skill in the art would have increased the number of spokes as an obvious design choice, Sullivan’668 discloses the number may be any number so long as they are symmetrical [0055]. One of ordinary skill in the art would increase the flex modulus of the inner core for increased speed.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (2001/0031668) in view of Bender et al. (8,979,645) and Sullivan et al. (2005/0250600), and further in view of Sullivan et al (7,371,192). Claim 11, Sullivan ‘668 discloses the two-layer core diameter is from 1.0 to 1.64 inches [0033]. Sullivan ‘668 does not disclose the diameter of the inner core or hub alone. Sullivan ‘192 teaches an inner core diameter from 0.25 to 0.5 inch (col 2, lines 57-60). One of ordinary skill in the art would vary the inner core diameter for the desired spoke length. Claim 14, Sullivan’668 discloses a total core length from 1.0 to 1.64 inches and Sullivan’192 teaches an inner core diameter of 0.5 inch. The difference would be the spoke length, which would be at least two times greater than a diameter of the hub. One of ordinary skill in the art would vary the inner core diameter for the desired spoke length.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Claims 16 and 18 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 RAEANN GORDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/RAEANN GORDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
January 7, 2026