Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/769,978

CONSTITUENT MEMBER OF GOLF BALL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Examiner
GORDEN, RAEANN
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Bridgestone Sports Co. 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 §112
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. Claims 12-14 are 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. Claims 12-14, the base claim is for a rubber composition, the golf ball parameters do not further limit the composition. Claims 13-14, no antecedent basis for the core. 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo et al. (2020/0001143) in view of Miyazaki et al. (2019/0048175). Claim 1, Shindo discloses a rubber composition for golf balls, comprising (a) a base rubber, (b) a co-crosslinking agent which is an alpha, beta unsaturated carboxylic acid or a metal salt thereof or both, (c) an organic peroxide (crosslinking initiator), and (d) water (abstract). Shindo further discloses at least 0.1 parts of a hindered phenol-type antioxidant based on 100 parts rubber [0054]. Shindo does not disclose the antioxidant having a thioether structure. Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition comprising antioxidants such as Antage HP-500 and Irganox 1520L [0065], which are identical to applicant’s antioxidant with a thioether structure, see instant spec [0070]. One of ordinary skill in the art would include the antioxidant comprising a thioether structure for the desired durability. Claims 2-5, Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition comprising antioxidants such as Antage HP-500 and Irganox 1520L [0065], which are identical to applicant’s antioxidant with a thioether structure, see instant spec [0070]. The properties will also be identical. Claim 6, Shindo discloses an antioxidant which is a benzoimidazole of general formula (II) (see claim) or a metal salt thereof or both. R is a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group of 1 to 20 carbon atoms and m is an integer from 1 to 4, with each R being the same or different when m is 2 or more [0046-0047]. Claim 7, Shindo discloses the antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of 2-mercaptobenzoimidazole, 2-mercaptomethylbenzoimidazole, and metal salts thereof [0047]. One of ordinary skill in the art would include the antioxidant comprising a thioether structure for the desired durability. Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo et al. (2020/0001143) in view of Miyazaki et al. (2019/0048175), and further in view of Shindo et al. (2021/0379450). Claim 8, Shindo in view of Miyazaki does not disclose (g) a sulfur or alkylphenoldisulfide. Shindo ‘450 teaches a rubber composition comprising a sulfur or an organosulfur which is alkylphenoldisulfide polymers represented by the general formula (III) (see claim). R is an alkyl group and n is the degree of polymerization in a range of 2 to 20 [0065, 0067]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have included an additional organosulfur for enhanced processing. Claim 9, Shindo ‘450 teaches R in the general formula (III) is an lower alkyl group of 1 to 6 carbon atoms selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl, n-propyl,iso-propyl, n-butyl, tert-butyl, n-amyl (pentyl), iso-amyl (pentyl), tert-amyl (pentyl), sec- isoamyl, neopentyl, n-hexyl, iso-hexyl, tert-hexyl groups [0065]. Claim 10, Shindo ‘450 teaches amylphenoldisulfide polymers. Claim 11, Shindo ‘143 discloses an organosulfur differing from component (g) [0051]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have included an additional organosulfur for enhanced processing. 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 17, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (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