OFFICE ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant filed a claim set on 11/5/2024. Claims 1–16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1–16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes underlining (Ho and Hs) which should be reserved for marking-up of amendments. See 37 CFR 1.121.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 11/5/2024 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 16 are confusing in claim scope. Each is an apparatus claim (a ball) setting forth structure, yet the claim includes what appears to be a method step (core is formed by crosslinking ). This step appears to represent a method manufacturing the apparatus rather than the structure of the apparatus itself.
See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claims 12–14 are confusing in claim scope. The minimum and maximum deformation characteristics should be tied to theoretical minimum and maximum compressive forces (i.e. 98 N, 1274 N). Care should be taken to craft the claims to clearly specify structural characteristics of the ball apparatus rather than actual performance of testing steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–16 would be allowed if the claim rejections and objections were overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the cited art (such as US 10,265,585 to Makura) teaches a golf ball with a core and surrounding layer(s), and distribution plots of hardness vs. distance from core center, Makura does not appear to teach the particularities of claim 1 including:
“in a graph on which distances (mm) of and Shore C hardnesses at a central point of the core Ho, a first point whose distance from the central point is 2.5 mm, a second point whose distance from the central point is 5.0 mm, a third point whose distance from the central point is 7.5 mm, a fourth point whose distance from the central point is 10.0 mm, a fifth point whose distance from the central point is 12.5 mm, a sixth point whose distance from the central point is 15.0 mm, and a point on a surface of the core Hs, are plotted, a slope A1 of a straight line connecting the central point and the first point is not less than 1.00, and a maximum value Amax of absolute values of the following slopes A2 to A7 is not greater than 0.90, A2: a slope of a straight line connecting the first point and the second point, A3: a slope of a straight line connecting the second point and the third point, A4: a slope of a straight line connecting the third point and the fourth point, A5: a slope of a straight line connecting the fourth point and the fifth point, A6: a slope of a straight line connecting the fifth point and the sixth point, and A7: a slope of a straight line connecting the sixth point and the point on the surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D CARLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6716. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 am to 5:00 pm, off 1st 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached on (571) 270-1367. 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.
/JEFFREY D CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights