Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/679,218

GOLF BALL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 30, 2024
Examiner
GORDEN, RAEANN
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1220 granted / 1469 resolved
+13.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1510
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1469 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 5-31-2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2023-001870, 2023-001873, 2023-001873 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (2023/0082849) in view of Umezawa (2013/0196790). Claim 1, Watanabe discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical core, an intermediate layer covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover positioned outside the intermediate layer and having a plurality of dimples (fig 1). The slab hardness Hc (Shore D) of a cover composition constituting the outermost cover is 35 Shore D [0089] and a thickness Tc (mm) of the outermost cover is 1 mm [0091]. Watanabe does not disclose the plurality of dimples have a total lower volume Vi of more than 365 mm3. Umezawa teaches a three-layer golf ball comprising a total lower dimple volume (fig 2) of 464.4 mm3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) + (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Solving for equation 8.5≤Tc/Hc×Vi (1/35x464.4 = 13.2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the dimple volume for the desired flight performance. Claim 2, Watanabe discloses the slab hardness Hc of the cover composition constituting the outermost cover ranges from 35-60 in Shore D hardness, and the thickness Tc of the outermost cover ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm [0089, 0091]. Claim 3, Umezawa teaches the total lower volume Vi of the plurality of dimples is 464.4 mm3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) + (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Claim 4, Watanabe discloses a hardness difference (Hms-Hcs) between a surface hardness Hms of the intermediate layer and a surface hardness Hcs of the golf ball is more than 0 in Shore C hardness (98-87) (table 6, example 1). Claim 5, Watanabe discloses a hardness difference (Hms-Hs) between a surface hardness Hms of the intermediate layer and a surface hardness Hs of the spherical core is more than 0 in Shore C hardness (98-87.4) (table 6, example 1). Claim 6, Watanabe discloses the cover composition constituting the outermost cover is a resin composition containing a polyurethane as a base resin [0093]. Claim 7, Watanabe discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical core, an intermediate layer covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover positioned outside the intermediate layer and having a plurality of dimples (fig 1). Watanabe discloses a center hardness Hо (Shore C) of the spherical core, a surface hardness Hs (Shore C) of the spherical core, the slab hardness Hc (Shore D) of a cover composition constituting the outermost cover is 35 Shore D [0089], and a thickness Tc (mm) of the outermost cover is 1 mm [0091]. Watanabe does not disclose the plurality of dimples have a total lower volume Vi of more than 365 mm3. Umezawa teaches a three-layer golf ball comprising a total lower dimple volume (fig 2) of 464.4 mm3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) + (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Solving for equation (H-S) = 18 [0076] {(Hs-Ho)/(Vi×Tc/Hc)}<2.1 [18/(464.4(1/35)) = 1.4]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the dimple volume for the desired flight performance. Claim 8, Watanabe discloses a hardness difference (Hs-Ho) between the surface hardness Hs of the spherical core and the center hardness Hо of the spherical core is less than 20 in Shore C hardness [0076]. Claim 9, Umezawa teaches the total lower volume Vi of the plurality of dimples is 464.4 mm3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) + (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Claim 10, Watanabe discloses the slab hardness Hc of the cover composition constituting the outermost cover ranges from 35-60 in Shore D hardness, and the thickness Tc of the outermost cover ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm [0089, 0091]. Claim 11, Watanabe discloses a hardness difference (Hms-Hcs) between a surface hardness Hms of the intermediate layer and a surface hardness Hcs of the golf ball is more than 0 in Shore C hardness (98-87) (table 6, example 1). Claim 12, Watanabe discloses a hardness difference (Hms-Hs) between a surface hardness Hms of the intermediate layer and a surface hardness Hs of the spherical core is more than 0 in Shore C hardness (98-87.4) (table 6, example 1). Claim 13, Watanabe discloses the cover composition constituting the outermost cover is a resin composition containing a polyurethane as a base resin [0093]. Claim 14, Watanabe discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical core, an intermediate layer covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover positioned outside the intermediate layer and having a plurality of dimples (fig 1). Watanabe discloses a center hardness Ho (Shore C hardness) of the spherical core, a surface hardness Hs (Shore C hardness) of the spherical core, a hardness difference S=Hs-Ho is 18 [0076], and a material hardness Hm (Shore D hardness) of the intermediate layer is 60 [0078]. Watanabe discloses the plurality of dimples have a total lower volume Vi 315 mm3 (table 3), but does not satisfy the equation. Umezawa teaches a three-layer golf ball comprising a total lower dimple volume (fig 2) of 464.4 mm3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Solving for S×Hm/Vi<2.4 (18x(60/464.4) = 2.3). Claim 15, 0.35<(H10-Ho)/S<0.6 is satisfied where H10 is a hardness at a 10 mm point from a center of the spherical core (fig 4, comp ex 2). Claim 16, the hardness difference S<20 [0076]. Claims 17-18, Umezawa teaches the total lower volume Vi of the plurality of dimples is 464.4 mm3 (table 3) [(40x1.53) + (184x1.31) + (96x0.73) + (32x1.72) + (16x1.45) + (16x0.62) + (8x0.49)]. Claim 19, 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 (table 6, ex 1). Claim 20, Watanabe discloses the outermost cover contains a polyurethane as a resin component [0093]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the dimple volume for the desired flight performance. 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 16, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599819
GOLF CLUB HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594464
GOLF BALLS HAVING AT LEAST ONE RADAR DETECTABLE MARK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594465
GOLF BALLS HAVING INCREASED IMPACT DURABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582876
GOLF BALL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576314
GOLF CLUB HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-5.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1469 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month