DETAILED ACTION
35 USC § 112
To create definiteness to the claims, the Examiner construes the term “about” within the claims to mean that “each numerical parameter should at least be construed in light of the number of reported significant digits and by applying ordinary rounding techniques” as specifically disclosed in applicant’s spec, par. [0204].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lin (US Pub. No. 2013/0072323 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Richards (US Pat. No. 808,683).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of making a golf ball (Fig. 1) comprising the steps of: forming an assembly of dual core components (Fig. 5) by: providing a solid spherical inner core component (Fig. 5, item 220 and par. [0036]) and two outer core components including a first half-shell (Fig. 5, item 360), a second half-shell (Fig. 5, item 355); depositing the solid spherical inner core component into a first hemispherically-shaped inner surface of the first half-shell such that a first outer surface portion of the solid spherical inner core component is encased within the first half-shell (Fig. 5 and par. [0041]); and placing a second hemispherically-shaped inner surface of the second half-shell about a second outer surface portion of the solid spherical inner core component (Fig. 5 and par. [0041]), and such that the second outer surface portion of the solid spherical inner core component is encased within the second half-shell (Fig. 5 and pars. [0041]); molding the two outer core components about the solid spherical inner core component (par. [0041]), thereby forming an outer core layer thereabout such that the solid spherical inner core is immovably centered within the outer core layer (par. [0041]); and forming at least one surrounding layer around the outer core layer (Fig. 7, items 205/210; noting this is obvious and par. [0070]). It is noted that Lin does not specifically disclose three outer core components including a ring-shaped securing plate, positioning an inner ring surface of the ring-shaped securing plate about the solid spherical inner core component such that a bottom side of the ring-shaped securing plate is adjacent a first mating surface of the first hemispherical shell, placing a second hemispherically-shaped shell such that a second mating surface of the second hemispherically-shaped shell is adjacent a top side of the ring-shaped securing plate. However, Richards discloses a golf ball with three outer cover components (Fig. 2, noting two half shells and ring, item 4/5) including a ring-shaped securing plate (Figs. 1 and 2, items/4/5), positioning an inner ring surface of the ring-shaped securing plate about the solid spherical inner core component such that a bottom side of the ring-shaped securing plate is adjacent a first mating surface of the first hemispherical shell, placing a second hemispherically-shaped shell such that a second mating surface of the second hemispherically-shaped shell is adjacent a top side of the ring-shaped securing plate (Fig. 2 making this obvious). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lin to use three outer core components including a ring-shaped securing plate, positioning an inner ring surface of the ring-shaped securing plate about the solid spherical inner core component such that a bottom side of the ring-shaped securing plate is adjacent a first mating surface of the first hemispherical shell, placing a second hemispherically-shaped shell such that a second mating surface of the second hemispherically-shaped shell is adjacent a top side of the ring-shaped securing plate as taught and suggested by Richards because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a separate ring around an inner core, the ring used to attach a first and second hemispherical shell to an inner core and each other) to improve a similar product (a dual core golf ball with an inner core and two half shells attached around it) in the same way (using a separate ring around an inner core, the ring used to attach a first and second hemispherical shell to an inner core, the ring and hemisphere assemble used in order to provide “great strength to the joint” – see Richards: page 1, lines 96-100).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Lin and Richards disclose each of the first half-shell, the ring-shaped securing plate, and the second half-shell is comprised of the same rubber composition (Richards: page 1, lines 31-36 and lines 57-67; clearly stating that the outer covers and the annular strip/ring shaped securing plate can be made of “celluloid”, i.e. the same material, and Lin: par. [0054]: disclosing “rubber” for the outer core half-shells, so it would be obvious to make the ring-shape plate from rubber in the application of a dual core to create the “great strength to the joint” as taught by Richards).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the solid spherical inner core component is comprised of a rubber composition (Richards: page 1, lines 31-36; noting “rubber”).
Regarding claim 4, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the at least one surrounding layer comprises a cover (Lin: Fig. 7, items 205 or 210 or par. [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the at least one surrounding layer further comprises an intermediate layer surrounding the outer core(Lin: Fig. 7, item 210 or par. [0070]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the ring-shaped securing plate is located adjacent to and proximate an equator of the solid spherical inner core component (Richard: Figs. 1 and 2; noting this is obvious; see Fig. 1 below).
Regarding claim 7, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the inner ring surface of the ring-shaped securing plate contacts the solid spherical inner core component (Richard: Figs. 1 and 2; noting this is obvious).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the ring-shaped securing plate has: (i) a body defined by the top side, the bottom side, the inner ring surface and an outer ring surface (Richard: Fig. 1 above; noting this is inherent); and (ii) a thickness T defined by the distance between the top side and bottom side (Richard: Fig. 1 above); and (iii) a constant width W defined by the distance from a given point along the inner ring surface to a point on the outer ring surface measured radially outward from the given point (Richard: Fig. 1 above; noting essentially all of these limitations are inherent).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the combined Lin and Richards do not specifically disclose that the thickness T is from about 0.050 inches to about 0.10 inches. However, Richard: Fig. 1 above, clearly discloses that there is some inherent thickness T. In addition, regarding the exact thickness measurement, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(see applicant’s spec, pars. [0016] and [0038]; neither paragraph giving criticality to the exact dimensions). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact thickness T would not make the claimed invention perform differently: that is, the ring-secure plate would create a strong joint between the two hemispheres regardless of its exact thickness T.
Regarding claim 10, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the width W of the ring-shaped securing plate is the same as a thickness TMS of each mating surface (Richards: Fig. 1 above). It is noted that the combined Lin and Richards do not specifically disclose that the ring is less than the TMS by up to about 10%. However, regarding the exact W value as compared to the TMS, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(see applicant’s spec, par. [0019]/[0041] and [0020]/[0042]; the latter paragraphs stating that “width W of the ring-shape securing plate is the same as a thickness TMS” which negates any criticality to having less than about 10%). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact W of the ring as compared to the TMS would not make the claimed invention perform differently: that is, the ring-secure plate would create a strong joint between the two hemispheres regardless of its exact W value as compared to the cover TMS thickness.
Regarding claim 11, the combined Lin and Richards discloses that the ring-shaped securing plate is cured sufficiently to crosslink with each of the first mating surface of the first half-shell and the second mating surface of the second half-shell while the three outer core components are compression molded about the solid spherical inner core component (Richards: page 1, lines 80-106; clearly disclosing uniting of the ring and half-shells by heat and compression, and Lin: par. [0051]; clearly disclosing “cross-linking” of rubber for the outer core, as such, the limitation would be obvious when applying the technique in Richards to an outer core of Lin that is made of rubber).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. 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.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
7/14/26
Prosecution Insights