DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communication received 10/15/2024 – application papers received, including Power of Attorney.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/15/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification - Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections - Minor
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 4-5 and 14-18, the term “inches” should read --inch--.
As to claim 6, since a weight has already been set forth in claim 1, it would be more grammatically coherent to replace the phrase “wherein the core has a weight of” with the phrase --wherein the weight of the core is--.
As to claim 7, since a diameter has already been set forth in claim 1, it would be more grammatically coherent to replace the phrase “wherein the core has a diameter of” with the phrase --wherein the diameter of the core is--.
As to claim 8, since a coefficient of restitution has already been set forth in claim 1, it would be more grammatically coherent to replace the phrase “wherein the core has a coefficient of restitution of” with the phrase --wherein the coefficient of restitution of the core is--.
Appropriate correction is required.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 18/916,092 (reference application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art.
Here, the claims of the copending ‘092 application and the instant application recite the same parameters of the golf ball including the core, the cover, and the dimple pattern, with further particulars relating to the drag coefficient, lift coefficient, Reynolds number, integrated drag area, golf ball speed, launch angle, and spin ratio, with the claims of the copending ‘092 application in many claims including broader ranges within which the ranges of the instant claims reside. Other ranges of limitations required by the copending ‘092 application are especially close to the ranges recited in the instant claims and are considered to be obvious variations of the ranges in the instant claims. Note the following comments:
As to claim 1, see claim 1 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 2, see claim 2 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 3, see claim 3 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 4, see claim 5 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 5, see claim 7 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 6, see claim 8 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 7, see claim 10 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 8, see claim 12 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 9, see claim 13 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 10, see claim 1 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 11, see claim 15 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 12, see claim 16 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 13, see claim 17 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 14, see claim 18 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 15, see claim 19 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 16, see claim 20 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 17, see claim 21 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 18, see claim 22 of the copending ‘092 application.
As to claim 19, see claim 23 of the copending ‘092 application.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 18/916,006 (reference application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art.
Here, the claims of the copending ’006 application and the instant application recite the same parameters of the golf ball including the core, the cover, and the dimple pattern, with further particulars relating to the drag coefficient, lift coefficient, Reynolds number, integrated drag area, golf ball speed, launch angle, and spin ratio, with the claims of the copending ‘006 application in many claims including broader ranges within which the ranges of the instant claims reside. Other ranges of limitations required by the copending ‘006 application are especially close to the ranges recited in the instant claims and are considered to be obvious variations of the ranges in the instant claims. Note the following comments:
As to claim 1, see claim 1 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 2, see claim 2 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 3, see claim 3 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 4, see claim 5 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 5, see claim 8 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 6, see claim 11 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 7, see claim 12 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 8, see claim 13 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 9, see claim 14 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 10, see claim 16 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 11, see claim 17 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 12, see claim 18 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 13, see claim 19 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 14, see claim 20 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 15, see claim 21 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 16, see claim 22 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 17, see claim 23 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 18, see claim 22 of the copending ‘006 application.
As to claim 19, see claim 25 of the copending ‘006 application.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of copending Application No. 18/915,794 (reference application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art.
Here, the claims of the copending ’794 application and the instant application recite the same parameters of the golf ball including the core, the cover, and the dimple pattern, with further particulars relating to the drag coefficient, lift coefficient, Reynolds number, integrated drag area, golf ball speed, launch angle, and spin ratio, with the claims of the copending ‘794 application in many claims including broader ranges within which the ranges of the instant claims reside. Other ranges of limitations required by the copending ‘794 application are especially close to the ranges recited in the instant claims and are considered to be obvious variations of the ranges in the instant claims. Note the following comments:
As to claim 1, see claim 3 (which depends from claim 1) of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 2, see claim 9 of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 3, see claim 10 of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 7, see claim 12 of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 8, see claim 15 of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 10, see claim 3 of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 11, see at least claims 5 and 7 of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 12, see at least claims 5 and 6 of the copending ‘794 application.
As to claim 19, see claim 18 of the copending ‘794 application.
Further Observations on Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Applicant is respectfully urged to maintain a clear line of demarcation between the instant claim set and the claims in the copending applications listed below. While no double patenting rejections based on the copending applications listed below are currently being made of record, maintaining a clear distinction between the instant claims and the claims of each of the copending applications listed here will help to reduce the likelihood of obviousness-type double patenting concerns arising during later prosecution in the instant case. It is clear that the applicant, who in this case is most familiar with the language, content and prosecution history of the copending applications identified here, is best equipped to recognize any potential double patenting concerns and should therefore make an effort to amend the instant claims or file appropriate terminal disclaimers. The applicant is respectfully requested to provide further comment as to whether the applicant believes that the claims of the copending applications listed here conflict, or do not conflict, with the claims of the instant application.
US Patent Application Serial Numbers: 18/916,174; 18/916,124; 18/915,943; 18/915,773; 18/916,238; 18/915,909; and 18/915,813
Further References of Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogg (‘039) discusses percentage of dimple area as well as an average lift coefficient and an average drag coefficient along with a Reynolds number;
Ogg (110) notes first, second, third, fourth and fifth pluralities of dimples, with specifics about the dimple coverage, dimple radius and dimple diameters;
Ogg (‘203) explains a dimple pattern for a golf ball having a core and a cover along with drag coefficient related to various Reynolds numbers;
Bissonnette discloses a combination of a spin ratio and Reynolds number as these factors relate to an aerodynamic coefficient magnitude;
Aoyama discloses dimples of multiple sizes, as well as percentage of dimple coverage, a spin ratio and a Reynolds number; and
Mimura relates Reynolds number to lift coefficient.
Further, related publications sharing at least one common inventor and a common assignee have also been cited, of interest.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-Fri.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (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 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.
SEBASTIANO PASSANITI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights