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) 1-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (2023/0082849) in view of Umezawa et al. (2013/0196790). Claim 1, Watanabe discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical core, an intermediate layer positioned outside the spherical core, and an outermost cover positioned outside the intermediate layer and having a plurality of dimples (fig 1). Watanabe further discloses a center hardness H0 (Shore C hardness) of the spherical core, a surface hardness H100 (Shore C hardness) of the spherical core, a hardness difference S=H100-H0, a material hardness Hm (Shore D hardness) of the intermediate layer, a material hardness Hc (Shore D hardness) of the outermost cover, and a thickness Tc (mm) of the outermost cover. Watanabe does not disclose a dimple volume greater than 365. Umezawa teaches a three-layer golf ball comprising a total lower dimple volume (fig 2) of 464.4 mm^3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) + (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Solving for the equation using Watanabe Table 6, comp ex 4 in view of the total dimple volume of Umezawa, the value is 130. (Hc/Tc)×(S×Hm/Vi)≤130 [(47÷0.82) x 16 x (66 ÷ 464.4)]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the dimple volume for the desired flight performance. Claim 2, Watanabe discloses the range for H50 (~H10) is from 65-74 ([0060] (fig 5) and H0 is from 62-72 [0064], using the first number for each range the difference would be 3 (65-62). 0.35<(H10-H0)/S<0.6 or (65-62)/16 = 0.19 (table 6, comp ex 4). Claim 3, Watanabe discloses the hardness difference S<20 is S=16 (table 6, comp 4). Claims 4-5, Umezawa teaches a total lower dimple volume (fig 2) of 464.4 mm^3 (table 3). Claim 6, Watanabe discloses the surface hardness (Shore C hardness) of the spherical core < a surface hardness (Shore C hardness) of the intermediate layer > a surface hardness (Shore C hardness) of the golf ball is satisfied (86.9 < 98 >87) (table 6, comp ex 4). Claim 7, Watanabe discloses the outermost cover contains a polyurethane as a resin component [0093]. Claim 8, Watanabe discloses the surface hardness H100 of the spherical core ranges from 83-94 in Shore C hardness [0056]. Claim 9, Watanabe discloses the center hardness H0 of the spherical core ranges from 62-72 in Shore C hardness [0064]. Claim 10, Watanabe discloses the material hardness Hm of the intermediate layer ranges from 60-72 in Shore D hardness [0078]. Claim 11, Watanabe discloses a thickness Tm of the intermediate layer ranges from 0.9 mm to 1.5 mm [0080]. Claim 12, Watanabe discloses the material hardness Hc of the outermost cover ranges from 35-60 in Shore D hardness [0089]. Claim 13, Watanabe discloses the thickness Tc of the outermost cover ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm [0091]. Claim 14, Watanabe discloses wherein the hardness H50 (~H10) ([0060] (fig 5) ranges from 65-76 in Shore C hardness [0060] (fig 5). Claim 15, Watanabe discloses the value (Hc/Tc) ranges from 57.3 (47/0.82) (table 6, comp ex 4). Claim 16, Watanabe discloses the value (Hm/Vi) ranges from 0.14 (66/464.4) (table 6, comp ex 4). Claim 19, Umezawa teaches a three-layer golf ball comprising a total lower dimple volume (fig 2) of 464.4 mm^3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) + (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Claim 20, Watanabe discloses the hardness difference S<20 is S=16 (table 6, comp 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the dimple volume for the desired flight performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant rejection, while the primary reference is cited, the comparative or negative examples are used to show applicant’s invention. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objectives of Watanabe are moot because the superior examples are not cited, see comparative example 6.
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 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
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights