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, 3-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (2020/0129815) in view of Iwami et al. (2005/0049084). Claim 1, Hayashi discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical core, and an outermost cover positioned outside the spherical core and having a plurality of dimples formed thereon, wherein a hardness difference S (=Hs-Ho) of zero between a surface hardness Hs of the spherical core and a center hardness Ho (Shore C hardness) of the spherical core [0143], a material hardness C (Shore D hardness) of 60 for the outermost cover [0151]. Hayashi discloses the golf ball has between 200 and 500 dimple but does not disclose the total volume of the dimples [0150]. Iwami teaches a golf ball comprising about 432 dimples with a total volume V (V+W) (mm3) of the plurality of dimples below a surface of a virtual sphere from 485.2 mm3 to 585.2 mm3 (tables 3-4 (V+W)). Solving for V+S×C≤1200 (485.2+ 0×60 = 485.2). Iwami also teaches a core diameter of 37 mm (Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the core for performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the dimple volume for the desired flight performance. Claim 3, Hayashi discloses wherein S+C≤60 (0+60=60) is satisfied. Claim 4, Hayashi discloses the cover contains an ionomer resin (table 3). Claim 5, Iwami teaches the total volume V (V+W) of the plurality of dimples ranges from 485.2 mm3 to 585.2 mm3 (tables 3-4 (V+W)). Claim 6, Hayashi discloses the hardness difference S ranges from 0 to 20 in Shore C hardness [0143]. Claim 7, Hayashi discloses the surface hardness Hs of the spherical core ranges from 50 to 90 in Shore C hardness [0141]. Claim 8, Hayashi discloses the center hardness Ho of the spherical core ranges from 40 to 90 in Shore C hardness [0142]. Claim 9, Hayashi discloses the material hardness C of the outermost cover ranges from 20 to 70 in Shore D hardness [0151]. Claim 10, Hayashi in view of Iwami discloses S, C, and V satisfy 300≤V+S×C≤1200 (485.2+ 0×60 = 485.2). Claim 12, Hayashi discloses 30≤S+C (0+60=60) is satisfied. Claim 13, Hayashi discloses the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition containing (a) a base rubber, (b) an α,β-unsaturated carboxylic acid having 3 to 8 carbon atoms and/or a metal salt thereof as a co-crosslinking agent, and (c) a crosslinking initiator (abstract). Claim 14, Hayashi discloses the rubber composition further contains (g) a terpene-based resin (abstract). Claim 15, Hayashi discloses an amount of (g) the terpene-based resin ranges from 2 part by mass to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of (a) the base rubber [0056]. Claim 16, Iwami teaches the total volume V (V+W) of the plurality of dimples ranges from 485.2 mm3 to 585.2 mm3 (tables 3-4 (V+W)). Lowering the value by 5% is within the capabilities of one skilled in the art for flight performance. Claim 18, Iwami discloses a compression of 2.75 mm (table 5). Increasing the core size of Hayashi to the sizes taught by Iwami would result in larger compression values. Claim 20, Iwami teaches a core diameter of 37 mm (Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the core for performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the dimple volume for the desired flight performance.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (2020/0129815) in view of Iwami et al. (2005/0049084), and further in view of Kasashima et al. (5,911,639). Hayashi in view of Iwami does not disclose the lower dimple volume less than the upper dimple volume Vi-Vo≤0 and Vi-Vo ≥ -100, which is essentially dimples with a decreased depth or shallow dimple. Kashima teaches a depth for dimples of 0.8 mm (fig 1; col. 2, lines 14-17). The depth is within the range disclosed by applicant for dimple patterns 5-6, table 4-1, which has dimple depths of 0.0749 mm and 0.0877 mm. The dimple depth of Kasashima combined with the diameters of Iwami (3.2 to 4.1 mm, table 3) (Note: applicant’s dimple diameters are from 3 to 4.4 mm, Table 4-1) will provide volumes within the range claimed by applicant because the volume is derived from the depth and diameter. One of ordinary skill in the art would decrease the dimples depth to reduce the drag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The instant claims as currently written do not exclude additional layers. The rejection is based on the inner core layer of Hayashi, which is comparable to applicant’s single core layer. Claiming a single core in combination with a golf ball comprising a core and outer cover does not limit the golf ball to two layers.
Regarding applicant’s arguments about advantageous properties shown by the comparative test, the argument is not found persuasive. None of examples illustrate negative performance based on a single core or dual core. It should also be noted that the instant specification discloses the core of the invention may be a single or multi-layer core [0075]. Again, the specification does not provide negative effects for a dual core.
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
October 5, 2026
