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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. No antecedent basis for C and D (should depend from claim 10 instead of claim 1).
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (2022/0176205). Claim 1, Watanabe discloses a multi-piece solid golf ball comprising a core, an intermediate layer, and a cover, wherein a large number of dimples are formed on an outside surface of the cover, and a relationship between a cover material hardness and a midpoint hardness (Cm) between a core surface and a core center satisfies the following condition: midpoint hardness (Cm) between core surface and core center > cover material hardness [0050, 0092] where hardness means Shore C hardness [0047]. A surface hardness of the ball is not more than 60 on the Shore D hardness scale (tables 5-6). A deflection when the ball is compressed under a final load of 1,275 N (130 kgf) from an initial load of 98 N (10 kgf) is not more than 2.8 mm (tables 5-6). Watanabe does not disclose the lift and drag coefficients. However, Watanabe discloses 330 dimples with diameters from 2.75 to 4.6 mm and depths from 0.085 to 0.126 mm (table 3). The instant invention discloses 330 dimples with diameters from 2.92 to 4.69 mm and depths from 0.109 to 0.146 mm (table 3). Since the lift and drag directly depend from the dimple parameters the values will fall within or border applicant’s range. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the dimple parameter for enhanced flight performance. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Claim 2, Watanabe discloses a volume occupancy ratio VR of the dimples is from 0.6 to 1.0 % [0115]. Claims 3-4, Watanabe does not disclose the lift and drag coefficients. However, Watanabe discloses 330 dimples with diameters from 2.75 to 4.6 mm and depths from 0.085 to 0.126 mm (table 3). The instant invention discloses 330 dimples with diameters from 2.92 to 4.69 mm and depths from 0.109 to 0.146 mm (table 3). Since the lift and drag directly depend from the dimple parameters the values will fall within or border applicant’s range. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the dimple parameter for enhanced flight performance. Claim 5, Watanabe discloses the core has a hardness profile in which, letting the Shore C hardness at the core center be Cc, the Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm outward from the core center be Cc+4, the Shore C hardness at a midpoint M between the core center and the core surface be Cm, the Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm inward from the midpoint M be Cm-4, the Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm outward from the midpoint M be Cm+4, the Shore C hardness at the core surface be Cs, and the Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm inward from the core surface be Cs-4, and defining surface areas A to D as follows: surface area A: 1/2 × 4 × (Cc+4 - Cc) surface area B: 1/2 × 4 × (Cm - Cm-4) surface area C: 1/2 × 4 × (Cm+4 - Cm) surface area D: 1/2 × 4 × (Cs - Cs-4) [0056] the following condition is satisfied: (surface area C + surface area D) - (surface area A + surface area B) ≥ 2.0 [(14.8+15.5)-(4.6+7.8)=12.3]. Claim 6, the core has a hardness profile in which the following two conditions are satisfied: (surface area C) - (surface area A + surface area B) ≥ 2.0 and (surface area D) - (surface area A + surface area B) ≥ 2.0. [14.8-(4.6+7.8)=2.4] and [15.5-(4.6+7.8)=3.1] (table 5, example 4). Claim 7, the cover material hardness is from 30 to 53 on the Shore D hardness scale [0091]. Claim 8, the cover has a thickness of from 0.6 to 1.2 mm [0094]. Claim 9, a relationship between a surface hardness of an intermediate layer-encased sphere and the surface hardness of the ball satisfies the following condition: (surface hardness of ball) < (surface hardness of intermediate layer-encased sphere) where the hardness means Shore C hardness [0106]. Claim 10, the core is formed of a rubber composition containing the following components, a base rubber, an organic peroxide, a water, and a sulfur [0031, 0041]. Claim 11, a weight ratio sulfur/water of the water to the sulfur is from 0.020 to 0.200 (0.05/1=0.05) [0040, 0042]. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the dimple parameter for enhanced flight performance. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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
February 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights