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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isogawa et al. (2013/0324318). Claim 1, Isogawa discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical core, an intermediate layer covering the spherical core, and an outermost cover positioned outside the intermediate layer and having a plurality of dimples formed thereon (fig 1), wherein the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition containing a base rubber, a co-crosslinking agent, and a crosslinking initiator, the base rubber contains a natural rubber [0120], a total lower volume of the plurality of dimples is 365 mm3 or more [0117], and an occupation ratio of a total area of the plurality of dimples in a surface area of a virtual sphere that is assumed to have no dimples on the outermost cover is 78% or more [0103]. Claim 2, 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 (table 13, example 2 illustrates the core hardness increasing from the center to the surface), and the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core is 60 or less in Shore C hardness (table 13, example 2, 55 Shore C). Claim 7, a hardness difference (Hs-H0) between the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core and the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core is 20 or more in Shore C hardness (table 13, example 2, (86-55 = 31 Shore C). Claim 8, the hardness difference (Hs-H0) between the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core and the center hardness (H0) of the spherical core ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore C hardness (table 13, example 2, (86-55 = 31 Shore C). Claim 9, the total lower volume of the plurality of dimples is 400 mm3 [0117]. Claim 10, an amount of the natural rubber ranges from 20 mass % to 100 mass % in 100 mass % of the base rubber [0122].
Claim 11, a slab hardness of an intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is greater than a slab hardness of a cover composition forming the outermost cover (table 13, example 2). Claim 12, a cover composition forming the outermost cover is a resin composition containing a urethane resin as a base resin [0177], and a slab hardness of the cover composition forming the outermost cover is 40 or less in Shore D hardness (table 13, example 2, 55 Shore D 36). Claim 13, an intermediate layer composition 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 in Shore D hardness [0165] (table 13, example 2, 65 Shore D). Claim 14, the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 70 to 90 in Shore C hardness (table 13, example 2, 86 Shore C). Claim 15, the golf ball has a surface hardness in a range from 45 to 65 in Shore D hardness is inherent because the core, intermediate layer hardness, and cover hardness values are identical to applicant’s.
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isogawa et al. (2013/0324318) in view of Isogawa et al. (2011/0319193). Claim 5, Isogawa ‘318 discloses the core increasing in hardness from the core center to the cover but does not disclose the values at 2.5 mm increments. Isogawa ‘193 teaches a core increasing in hardness wherein the hardness (H5.0), the hardness (H7.5) and the hardness (H10) satisfy relationships of H7.5-H5.0<3.0 (68-67.5=0.5) and H10-H7.5<3.0 (68.5-68=0.5) in Shore C hardness. Claim 6, Isogawa ‘193 teaches wherein the hardness (H5.0), the hardness (H7.5) and the hardness (H10) satisfy relationships of 0.2≤H7.5-H5.0 (68-67.5=0.5) and 0.1≤H10-H7.5 (68.5-68=0.5) in Shore C hardness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the core hardness for enhanced flight performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights