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) 1-3, 5-10, and 12-24 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 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). 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 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 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). 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 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]. Claim 21, Watanabe discloses the thickness Tc of the outermost cover is 0.5 mm or more and 0.9 mm or less [0091], the slab hardness He of the cover composition constituting the outermost cover is 20 or more and 40 or less in Shore D hardness [0089], a ratio (Tc/Hc) of the thickness Tc (mm) to the slab hardness He (Shore D) is 0.016 or more and 0.030 or less (0.9/35=0.03), and the value (Tc/Hc x Vi) is 8.5 or more and 15 or less (.9/35x464.4 = 11.9). Claim 22, Watanabe discloses a hardness difference (Hs - Ho) between the surface hardness Hs and the center hardness Ho is less than 20 in Shore C hardness [0076], Umezawa teaches a total lower dimple volume (fig 2) of 464.4 mm3 (table 3), a ratio (Tc/Hc) of the thickness Tc (mm) to the slab hardness He (Shore D) is 0.012 or more and 0.033 or less (1/35=0.03), and the value {(Hs-Ho)/(Vi×Tc/Hc)}<2.1 [18/(464.4(1/35)) = 1.4]. Claims 23-24. the hardness difference (Hs - Ho) 18 in Shore C hardness, which borders applicant values of 17.5. Varying the difference by 0.5 unit is within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the dimple volume for the desired flight performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the primary reference, Watanabe fails to disclose the dimple volume greater than 365 mm3. However, the secondary reference is cited to teach the dimple volume. Modifying the dimple parameters is within the capabilities of one skilled in the art and is common for altering the flight performance.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion 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 application, Watanabe must be considered in its entirety, the disclosure is not limited to the examples.
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
July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights