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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract, “An object of the present disclosure is to provide a” (line 1) should be changed to --A-- and “present disclosure provides a” (line 4) should be deleted (note: the language of the Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc - see MPEP 608.01(b)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue ‘216 et al. (US 2024/0399216 - hereafter referred to as Inoue ‘216).
The applied reference has a common assignee / applicant / joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
In reference to claim 1
Inoue ‘216 discloses:
A golf ball comprising a spherical core (4), an intermediate layer (6) covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover (8) covering the intermediate layer, wherein
the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition (see par. [0071]) containing a base rubber, a co-crosslinking agent, and a crosslinking initiator,
the base rubber contains a natural rubber (see par. [0072]), the co-crosslinking agent contains (see par. [0071]) methacrylic acid and/or a metal salt thereof, and
a center hardness (H0) of the spherical core, a hardness (H2.5) at a point having a radial distance of 2.5 mm from a center of the spherical core, a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H7.5) at a point having a radial distance of 7.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H12.5) at a point having a radial distance of 12.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H15) at a point having a radial distance of 15 mm from the center of the spherical core, and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core satisfy a relationship of H0<H2.5<H5.0<H7.5<H10<H12.5<H15<Hs (see Core No. A, B, C, D, E, and F in Table 1, all of which satisfy the claimed relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 2
Inoue ‘216 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the center hardness (H0), the hardness (H2.5), the hardness (H5.0), the hardness (H7.5), the hardness (H10), the hardness (H12.5), the hardness (H15) and the surface hardness (Hs) satisfy the following relationships of
H2.5-H0<4,
H5.0-H2.5<4,
H7.5-H5.0<4,
H10-H7.5<4,
H12.5-H10<4,
H15-H12.5<4, and
Hs-H15<4 in Shore C hardness (see Core No. D in Table 1, which satisfies the claimed relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 3
Inoue ‘216 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein a hardness difference (Hs-H0) between the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core and the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core is 10 or less in Shore C hardness (see Core No. D in Table 1, which satisfies the claimed relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 8
Inoue ‘216 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the base rubber further contains a polybutadiene rubber (see par. [0072]).
In reference to claim 9
Inoue ‘216 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 2, wherein the center hardness (H0), the hardness (H2.5), the hardness (H5.0), the hardness (H7.5), the hardness (H10), the hardness (H12.5), the hardness (H15) and the surface hardness (Hs) satisfy the following relationships of
0.3≤H2.5-H0<4,
0.5≤H5.0-H2.5<4,
0.5≤H7.5-H5.0<4,
0.5≤H10-H7.5<4,
0.5≤H12.5-H10<4,
0.1≤H15-H12.5<4, and
0<Hs-H15<4 in Shore C hardness (see Core No. D in Table 1, which satisfies the claimed relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 10
Inoue ‘216 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core ranges from 55 to 77 in Shore C hardness (see Core No. A, B, C, D, E, and F in Table 1, all of which satisfy the claimed relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 11
Inoue ‘216 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 60 to 87 in Shore C hardness (see Core No. A, B, C, D, E, and F in Table 1, all of which satisfy the claimed relationship(s)).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue ‘215 et al. (US 2024/0399215 - hereafter referred to as Inoue ‘215) AND/OR Inoue ‘671 et al. (US 2025/0041671 - hereafter referred to as Inoue ‘671) AND/OR Inoue ‘672 et al. (US 2025/0041672 - hereafter referred to as Inoue ‘672) AND/OR Inoue ‘628 et al. (US 12,544,628 - hereafter referred to as Inoue ‘628).
The applied references have a common assignee / applicant / joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, they constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the references was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the references and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
In reference to claim 1
Inoue ‘215 AND/OR Inoue ‘671 AND/OR Inoue ‘672 AND/OR Inoue ‘628 each disclose all aspects of claim 1 (apparent from the respective disclosures; detailed mapping not provided for brevity purposes).
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2023/0166160).
In reference to claim 1
Watanabe ‘160 discloses:
A golf ball comprising a spherical core (1), an intermediate layer (3) covering the spherical core (i.e., the intermediate layer 3 is radially outward of the core 1)(note: Applicant’s par. [0087] stating “at least two intermediate layers covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover covering the intermediate layers” indicates that the term “covering” does not denote a contact relationship - i.e., in the case of “at least two intermediate layers”, at least one of such “intermediate layers” would not contact the “spherical core” and/or at least one of such “intermediate layers” would not contact the “outermost cover”), and an outermost cover (4) covering the intermediate layer, wherein
the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition (see par. [0029]) containing a base rubber, a co-crosslinking agent, and a crosslinking initiator,
the base rubber contains a natural rubber (see par. [0030]), the co-crosslinking agent contains methacrylic acid and/or a metal salt (see par. [0031]) thereof, and
a center hardness (H0) of the spherical core, a hardness (H2.5) at a point having a radial distance of 2.5 mm from a center of the spherical core, a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H7.5) at a point having a radial distance of 7.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H12.5) at a point having a radial distance of 12.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H15) at a point having a radial distance of 15 mm from the center of the spherical core, and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core satisfy a relationship of H0<H2.5<H5.0<H7.5<H10<H12.5<H15<Hs (note: see attached calculation showing Example 1 (Ex1), Example 2 (Ex2), Example 3 (Ex3), Example 4 (Ex4), and Comparative Example 1 (CEx1) as meeting the instant relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 2
Watanabe ‘160 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the center hardness (H0), the hardness (H2.5), the hardness (H5.0), the hardness (H7.5), the hardness (H10), the hardness (H12.5), the hardness (H15) and the surface hardness (Hs) satisfy the following relationships of
H2.5-H0<4,
H5.0-H2.5<4,
H7.5-H5.0<4,
H10-H7.5<4,
H12.5-H10<4,
H15-H12.5<4, and
Hs-H15<4 in Shore C hardness (note: see attached Examiner’s Calculation showing Ex2, Ex4, and CEx1 as satisfying the instant relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 3
Watanabe ‘160 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein a hardness difference (Hs-H0) between the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core and the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core is 10 or less in Shore C hardness (note: see attached Examiner’s Calculation showing CEx1 as satisfying the instant relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 8
Watanabe ‘160 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the base rubber further contains a polybutadiene rubber (see par. [0030]).
In reference to claim 9
Watanabe ‘160 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 2, wherein the center hardness (H0), the hardness (H2.5), the hardness (H5.0), the hardness (H7.5), the hardness (H10), the hardness (H12.5), the hardness (H15) and the surface hardness (Hs) satisfy the following relationships of
0.3≤H2.5-H0<4,
0.5≤H5.0-H2.5<4,
0.5≤H7.5-H5.0<4,
0.5≤H10-H7.5<4,
0.5≤H12.5-H10<4,
0.1≤H15-H12.5<4, and
0<Hs-H15<4 in Shore C hardness (note: see attached Examiner’s Calculation showing Ex2 and Ex4 as satisfying the instant relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 11
Watanabe ‘160 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 60 to 87 in Shore C hardness (note: see attached Examiner’s Calculation showing Ex2 and Ex4 as satisfying the instant relationship(s)).
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isogawa et al. (US 9,248,347 - hereafter referred to as Isogawa).
In reference to claim 1
Isogawa discloses:
A golf ball comprising a spherical core (107), an intermediate layer (108) covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover (112) covering the intermediate layer, wherein
the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition (see col.15:ll.19-30) containing a base rubber, a co-crosslinking agent, and a crosslinking initiator,
the base rubber contains a natural rubber (see col.15:ll.59-66), the co-crosslinking agent contains (see col.16:ll.47-54) methacrylic acid and/or a metal salt thereof, and
a center hardness (H0) of the spherical core (note: see col.9:ll.52-54 indicating a core diameter of at least 38 mm), a hardness (H2.5) at a point having a radial distance of 2.5 mm from a center of the spherical core, a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H7.5) at a point having a radial distance of 7.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H12.5) at a point having a radial distance of 12.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H15) at a point having a radial distance of 15 mm from the center of the spherical core, and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core satisfy a relationship of H0<H2.5<H5.0<H7.5<H10<H12.5<H15<Hs (see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13; also note e.g. col.3:ll.65-67 stating “The spherical core having the rubber layer where the hardness increases linearly or almost linearly…”).
In reference to claim 5
Isogawa discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein a slab hardness (i.e., 65 - see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13; also see Intermediate layer composition No. (a) in Table 4) of an intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is greater than a slab hardness (i.e., 29 - see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13) of a cover composition forming the outermost cover.
In reference to claim 6
Isogawa discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein a cover composition (see Cover composition No. A in Table 5, and note that Golf ball No. 2 includes Composition A for the cover as indicated in Table 13) forming the outermost cover is a resin composition containing a urethane resin as a base resin, and
a slab hardness of the cover composition forming the outermost cover is 40 or less (i.e., 29 - see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13; also see Cover composition No. A in Table 5) in Shore D hardness.
In reference to claim 7
Isogawa discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein an intermediate layer composition (see Intermediate layer composition No. (a) in Table 4, and note that Golf ball No. 2 includes composition (a) for the Intermediate Layer as indicated in Table 13) forming the intermediate layer is a resin composition containing an ionomer resin as a base resin, and
a slab hardness of the intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is 50 or more (i.e., 65 - see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13; also see Intermediate layer composition No. (a) in Table 4) in Shore D hardness.
In reference to claim 8
Isogawa discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the base rubber further contains a polybutadiene rubber (see col.15:ll.59-66).
In reference to claim 10
Isogawa discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core ranges from 55 to 77 (see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13) in Shore C hardness.
In reference to claim 11
Isogawa discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 60 to 87 (see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13) in Shore C hardness.
In reference to claim 12
Isogawa discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 5, wherein a hardness difference (Hm-Hc) between the slab hardness (Hm) of the intermediate layer (i.e., 65 - see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13) composition and the slab hardness (Hc) of the cover composition (i.e., 29 - see e.g. Golf ball No. 2 in Table 13) is more than 0 and 50 or less (i.e., 65 - 29 = 36) in Shore D hardness.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe ‘741 et al. (US 10,610,741 - hereafter referred to as Watanabe ‘741).
In reference to claim 1
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
A golf ball comprising a spherical core (1), an intermediate layer (2) covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover (3) covering the intermediate layer, wherein
the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition containing a base rubber (see col.4:ll.23-24), a co-crosslinking agent (i.e., Zinc salt - see Table 1), and a crosslinking initiator (i.e., organic peroxide - see Table 1),
the base rubber contains a natural rubber (see col.4:ll.23-34), the co-crosslinking agent contains methacrylic acid and/or a metal salt thereof, and
a center hardness (H0) of the spherical core, a hardness (H2.5) at a point having a radial distance of 2.5 mm from a center of the spherical core, a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H7.5) at a point having a radial distance of 7.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H12.5) at a point having a radial distance of 12.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H15) at a point having a radial distance of 15 mm from the center of the spherical core, and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core satisfy a relationship of H0<H2.5<H5.0<H7.5<H10<H12.5<H15<Hs (see Working Example 2, Comparative Example 1, Comparative Example 2, Comparative Example 3, Comparative Example 5, and Comparative Example 6 in Table 6, all of which satisfy the instant relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 5
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein a slab hardness (i.e., 64 or 66 - see sheet hardness in Table 6) of an intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is greater than a slab hardness (i.e., 47 - see sheet hardness in Table 6) of a cover composition forming the outermost cover.
In reference to claim 7
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein an intermediate layer composition (see col.9:ll.37-39) forming the intermediate layer is a resin composition containing an ionomer resin as a base resin, and
a slab hardness (i.e., 64 or 66 - see sheet hardness in Table 6) of the intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is 50 or more in Shore D hardness.
In reference to claim 8
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the base rubber further contains a polybutadiene rubber (see col.4:ll.23-34).
In reference to claim 10
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core ranges from 55 to 77 in Shore C hardness (see Working Example 2, Comparative Example 1, Comparative Example 2, Comparative Example 3, Comparative Example 5, and Comparative Example 6 in Table 6, all of which satisfy the instant relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 11
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 60 to 87 in Shore C hardness (see Comparative Example 1 and Comparative Example 2 in Table 6, both of which satisfy the instant relationship(s)).
In reference to claim 12
Watanabe ‘741 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 5, wherein a hardness difference (Hm-Hc) between the slab hardness (Hm) (i.e., 64 or 66 - see sheet hardness in Table 6) of the intermediate layer composition and the slab hardness (Hc) (i.e., 47 - see sheet hardness in Table 6) of the cover composition is more than 0 and 50 (i.e., 17 or 19) or less in Shore D hardness.
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe ‘067 et al. (US 2010/0298067 - hereafter referred to as Watanabe ‘067).
In reference to claim 1
Watanabe ‘067 discloses:
A golf ball comprising a spherical core (1), an intermediate layer (2) covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover (3) covering the intermediate layer, wherein
the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition (see par. [0044]) containing a base rubber (see par. [0044] and [0052]), a co-crosslinking agent (see par. [0044]), and a crosslinking initiator (i.e., an organic peroxide - see par. [0044]),
the base rubber contains a natural rubber (see par. [0051]), the co-crosslinking agent contains methacrylic acid and/or a metal salt (see par. [0052]) thereof, and
a center hardness (H0) of the spherical core, a hardness (H2.5) at a point having a radial distance of 2.5 mm from a center of the spherical core, a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H7.5) at a point having a radial distance of 7.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H12.5) at a point having a radial distance of 12.5 mm from the center of the spherical core, a hardness (H15) at a point having a radial distance of 15 mm from the center of the spherical core, and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core satisfy a relationship of H0<H2.5<H5.0<H7.5<H10<H12.5<H15<Hs (see Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Comparative Example 2, Comparative Example 3, and Comparative Example 4 in Table 4 in combination with Figure 3 and par. [0041]).
In reference to claim 8
Watanabe ‘067 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the base rubber further contains a polybutadiene rubber (see par. [0051])
In reference to claim 10
Watanabe ‘067 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core ranges from 55 to 77 (see Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Comparative Example 2, Comparative Example 3, and Comparative Example 4 in Table 4) in Shore C hardness.
In reference to claim 11
Watanabe ‘067 discloses:
The golf ball according to claim 1, wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 60 to 87 (see Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Comparative Example 2, Comparative Example 3, and Comparative Example 4 in Table 4) in Shore C hardness.
.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe ‘160 AND/OR Isogawa AND/OR Watanabe ‘741 AND/OR Watanabe ‘067 in view of Nakamura et al. (US 8,262,508 - hereafter referred to as Nakamura), and wherein Britton et al. (US 2024/0350868 - hereafter referred to as Britton) is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 4
Watanabe ‘160 AND/OR Isogawa AND/OR Watanabe ‘741 AND/OR Watanabe ‘067 each disclose:
The golf ball according to claim 1.
Watanabe ‘160 AND/OR Isogawa AND/OR Watanabe ‘741 AND/OR Watanabe ‘067 each does not disclose:
an amount of the natural rubber ranges from 10 mass % to 90 mass % in 100 mass % of the base rubber.
Nakamura discloses:
a golf ball core comprising a base rubber composition (see (a), (b), and (c) in Table 1) including natural rubber and synthetic rubber, wherein the natural rubber is 50% by weight of the base rubber composition.
Britton teaches a golf ball core that includes natural rubber due to it being ecologically friendly (see par. [0004]).
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 golf ball of Watanabe ‘160 AND/OR Isogawa AND/OR Watanabe ‘741 AND/OR Watanabe ‘067 to include a base rubber composition having natural rubber as 50% by weight, as disclosed by Nakamura, for the purpose of imbuing a desired ecological friendliness thereto.
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Iizuka (US 2016/0184646) discloses a golf ball core comprising natural rubber.
All other cited references are co-pending applications having a common applicant and/or inventor(s) that disclose a golf ball hardness gradient.
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