DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 September 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ‘334 (US 11,654,334) in view of Watanabe et al. ‘741 (US 10,610,741 - hereafter referred to as Watanabe ‘741).
In reference to claim 1
Watanabe ‘334 discloses:
A golf ball comprising a core (1) and a cover (4), wherein the core is formed in a single layer of a rubber composition (see col.2:ll.41-42), the cover is formed of a resin composition (see col.2:ll.44-45), and the core has a hardness profile in which, letting a Shore C hardness at a core center be Cc, a Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm outward from the core center be Cc+4, a Shore C hardness at a midpoint M between the core center and a core surface be Cm, a Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm inward from the midpoint M be Cm-4, a Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm outward from the midpoint M be Cm+4, a Shore C hardness at a position 4 mm inward from the core surface be Cs-4, and a Shore C hardness at the core surface be Cs, 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)
the following two conditions are satisfied:
(surface area D/surface area A) ≥ 8.0 (see Table 5 Examples 7 and 8, both of which include surface area A = 1.3 and surface area D = 11.5, which produces a value of 8.8 for the instant formula);
(surface area C/surface area B) + (surface area D/surface area A) ≥ 10.0 (see Table 5 Examples 7 and 8, both of which include surface area A = 1.3, surface area B = 12.8, surface area C = 17, and surface area D = 11.5, which produces a value of 10.1 for the instant formula) and
While Watanabe ‘334 further discloses a deflection when the core is compressed under a final load of 1,275 N (130 kgf) from an initial load of 98 N (10 kgf) be C (mm), Watanabe ‘334 does not disclose that the following condition is satisfied:
C × (Cs-Cc) ≥ 132.0 (note: see Table 5 Examples 7 and 8, both of which include core deflections of 4.7 and Cs-C of 22.7, which produces a value of 106.7 for the instant formula).
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
a golf ball core comprising a hardness gradient such that the difference between the core surface hardness Cs and the core center hardness Cc is in the range of 28-30 (see col.7:ll.59-64); the values of both the core surface hardness Cs and the core hardness difference Cs-C imbue a desired balance of initial ball velocity / durability to cracking and spin rate (see col.7:ln.44 through col.8:ln.3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball of Watanabe ‘334 to configure the difference between core surface hardness and the core center hardness to be in the range of 28-30, as disclosed by Watanabe ‘741, for the purpose of imbuing a desired balance of initial ball velocity / durability to cracking and spin rate. It is noted that the instant modification is envisaged as specifying the value for the argument Cs-C by accordingly selecting a value for Cs, which Watanabe ‘741 also establishes (see above description of Watanabe ‘741) is a result-effective variable for achieving a desired balance of initial ball velocity / durability to cracking and spin rate.
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 therefore addresses:
C × (Cs-Cc) ≥ 132.0 (note: in light of Watanabe ‘334 Examples 7 and 8 (see Table 5) having a core deflection C of 4.7 mm, the minimum value for Cs-Cc that satisfies the instant condition is 132.0 ÷ 4.7 = 28.1, which is achievable by the proposed modification over Watanabe ‘741).
In reference to claim 2
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 1, wherein the following condition is satisfied: (Cs-Cc) ≥ 29 (see above proposed modification over Watanabe ‘741).
In reference to claim 3
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 1, wherein a value of (surface area C/surface area B) + (surface area D/surface area A) is at least 13.0 (i.e., given Watanabe ‘334 Examples 7 and 8 (see Table 5) having a Cc of 53.4 and Cs-4 of 70.3 and the proposed combination including a Cs-Cc of (at least) 28.1, then in the proposed modification Cs = 53.4 + 28.1 = 81.5, surface area D = ½ × 4 × (81.5 - 70.3) = 22.4, and surface C/surface area B + surface area D/surface area A = 17/12.8 + 22.4/1.3 = 18.6).
In reference to claim 4
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 1, wherein the core is formed of a rubber composition containing the following components (A) to (D):
a base rubber (see Watanabe ‘334 Table 1 Examples 7 and 8),
(B) an organic peroxide (see Watanabe ‘334 Table 1 Examples 7 and 8),
(C) water (see Watanabe ‘334 Table 1 Examples 7 and 8) or a monocarboxylic acid metal salt,
(D) sulfur (see Watanabe ‘334 col.5:ll.53-67).
In reference to claim 5
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 4, wherein a content ratio of the components (D)(i.e., a value of 0.05 parts by weight - see Watanabe ‘334 col.6:ll.1-4) and (C)(i.e., 0.9 parts by weight - see Watanabe ‘334 Table 1 Examples 7 and 8) is 0.005 to 0.100 in a weight ratio of (D)/(C)(i.e., 0.05 ÷ 0.9 = 0.055).
In reference to claim 6
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 1, wherein an intermediate layer (3 - Watanabe ‘334) is formed between the core (Watanabe ‘334 - 1) and the cover (Watanabe ‘334 - 4).
In reference to claim 8
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 6, wherein a specific gravity of the intermediate layer is at least 1.05 (see Watanabe ‘334 col.12:ln.66 through col.13:ln.1).
In reference to claim 9
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 1, wherein, letting a deflection (mm) when the ball is compressed under a final load of 1,275 N (130 kgf) from an initial load of 98 N (10 kgf) be B (mm), the following two conditions are satisfied:
B ≥ 2.80 (i.e., 3.1 mm or 3.0 mm - see Watanabe ‘334 Table 5 Examples 7 and 8)
C-B ≥ 1.00 (4.7 - 3.1 = 1.6; 4.7 - 3.0 = 1.7).
In reference to claim 10
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 6, wherein a relationship between a core surface hardness, a surface hardness of a sphere (intermediate layer-encased sphere) in which the core is encased with the intermediate layer, and a surface hardness of a sphere (ball) in which the intermediate layer-encased sphere is encased with the cover satisfies the following condition:
ball surface hardness (i.e., 89 or 88 - see Watanabe ‘334 Table 5 Examples 7 and 8) < surface hardness of intermediate layer-encased sphere (i.e., 98 - see Watanabe ‘334 Table 5 Examples 7 and 8) > core surface hardness (i.e., 76.1 - see Watanabe ‘334 Table 5 Examples 7 and 8) (where the surface hardness of each sphere means Shore C hardness).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 and Watanabe ‘770 (US 2004/0142770; cited in an IDS).
In reference to claim 7
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 6.
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 does not address:
the intermediate layer contains an inorganic particulate filler.
Watanabe ‘770 discloses:
a golf ball comprising an intermediate layer having an inorganic particulate filler (see par. [0072); the inorganic particulate filler imbues a desired degree of resilience and/or crack durability (see par. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball of Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 to include an inorganic particulate filler in the intermediate layer, as disclosed by Watanabe ‘770, for the purpose of imbuing a desired degree of resilience and/or crack durability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 and Watanabe et al. ‘384 (US 9,937,384 - hereafter referred to as Watanabe ‘384), and wherein Watanabe ‘770 is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 11
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 6.
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 does not address:
a difference between a specific gravity of the cover and a specific gravity of the intermediate layer is not more than 0.15, and a difference between the specific gravity of the intermediate layer and a specific gravity of the core is not more than 0.15.
Watanabe ‘384 discloses:
a golf ball comprising a core (1), an intermediate layer (3), and a cover (4), wherein a difference between the specific gravity of the cover and the specific gravity of the intermediate layer is not more than 0.15 (see corresponding values for Comparative Example 4 in Table 3), and wherein a difference between the specific gravity of the intermediate layer and a specific gravity of the core is not more than 0.15 (see corresponding values for Comparative Example 4 in Table 3).
Watanabe ‘770 teaches that, in a golf ball, the value of the specific gravity of a core (1) imbues a desired balance of flight and resilience/distance (see pars. [0038] to [0039]), the value of the specific gravity of an intermediate layer (2) imbues a desired balance of crack durability and resilience (see par. [0083]), and the value of the specific gravity of a cover / outer layer (3) imbues a desired balance of scuff resistance and resilience (see par. [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball of Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 to include a difference between a specific gravity of the cover and a specific gravity of the intermediate layer is not more than 0.15 and a difference between the specific gravity of the intermediate layer and a specific gravity of the core is not more than 0.15, as disclosed by Watanabe ‘384, for the purpose of imbuing a desired balance of a desired balance of flight and resilience/distance to the core, a desired balance of crack durability and resilience to the intermediate layer, and a desired balance of scuff resistance and resilience to the cover.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 and Watanabe et al. ‘299 (US 2020/0108299 - hereafter referred to as Watanabe ‘229).
In reference to claim 12
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 addresses:
The golf ball of claim 6.
Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 does not address:
a relationship between an initial velocity of the entire core, an initial velocity of a sphere (intermediate layer-encased sphere) in which the core is encased with the intermediate layer, and an initial velocity of a sphere (ball) in which the intermediate layer-encased sphere is encased with the cover satisfies the following two conditions:
(initial velocity of ball) < (initial velocity of intermediate layer-encased sphere)
0.65 ≤ (initial velocity of intermediate layer-encased sphere) - (initial velocity of entire core) ≤ 0.98 (m/s).
Watanabe ‘299 discloses:
a golf ball comprising a core (1) and an intermediate layer (2), wherein an initial velocity of the ball is less than (see par. [0113]) an initial velocity of the intermediate layer-encased sphere in order to achieve sufficient rebound (see par. [0113]), and a difference between the initial velocity of the intermediate layer-encased sphere and the initial velocity of the core can be 0.65 to 0.8 m/s (see par. [0109]) in order to achieve a desired balance of rebound and cracking durability (see par. [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball of Watanabe ‘334 in view of Watanabe ‘741 to include an initial velocity of the ball is less than an initial velocity of the intermediate layer-encased sphere, as disclosed by Watanabe ‘299, in order to achieve sufficient rebound, and a difference between the initial velocity of the intermediate layer-encased sphere and the initial velocity of the core to be 0.65 to 0.8 m/s, as further disclosed by Watanabe ‘299, in order to achieve a desired balance of rebound and cracking durability.
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Watanabe et al. ‘580 (US 2020/0206580) discloses a Cs-Cc of up to 35.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights