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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 was/were considered by the examiner.
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, 5, 7-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki US 20050187038.
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses a golf ball comprising a spherical core (8), at least one intermediate layer (10) positioned outside the spherical core, and an outermost cover (6) positioned outside the intermediate layer and having a plurality of dimples (12) formed thereon, wherein
the spherical core is formed from a rubber composition containing a rubber component, a co-crosslinking agent, and a crosslinking initiator ([0069]),
the rubber component contains a natural rubber ([0065]),
the co-crosslinking agent contains methacrylic acid and/or a metal salt thereof ([0067]),
a total lower volume Vi (mm3) of the plurality of dimples is less than 365 mm3 ([0060]), and
an occupation ratio of the dimples defined by the following formula is 75% or more, Occupation ratio of dimples (%) = 100 × total area of all dimples / surface area of a virtual sphere that is assumed to have no dimples on a golf ball surface ([0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki further discloses that the total lower volume Vi (mm3) is 350 mm3 or less ([0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki further discloses that a material hardness Hm of the intermediate layer is greater than a material hardness Hc of the outermost cover ([0016], Table 6).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki further discloses that the intermediate layer is formed from an intermediate layer composition having a slab hardness of 50 or more in Shore D hardness (Table 6) and containing an ionomer resin ([0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki further discloses the outermost cover is formed from a cover composition having a slab hardness of 40 or less in Shore D hardness ([0030]) and containing a polyurethane ([0026]).
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki further discloses that a difference (Hm-Hc) between the material hardness Hm of the intermediate layer and the material hardness Hc of the outermost cover ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore D hardness ([0080]).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki US 20050187038.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki does not teach that an amount of the natural rubber is 10 mass % or more and 80 mass % or less in the rubber component.
It has been held, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the natural rubber content be in the range of 10-80% by mass solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that Sasaki’s golf ball would perform equally well with its flight trajectories within the ranges claimed, absent persuasive evidence that the particular range is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify natural rubber content as taught by Sasaki by utilizing a percentage ranges as claimed in order to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki US 20050187038 in view of Watanabe US 20070281802.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki does not teach the limitations thereof.
However, further discloses that 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) at a point having a radial distance of 5 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<H7.5<H10<H12.5<H15<Hs.
Watanabe teaches a golf ball comprising a increasing hardness from the center to the surface hardness of the spherical core (Fig. 3) in order to “provide a multi-piece solid golf ball which has a flight performance and controllability that are fully acceptable to professionals and other skilled golfers, while also having an excellent durability to cracking on repeated impact and an excellent scuff resistance” ([0008]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the spherical core of Sasaki by utilizing a gradual increase in the hardness as taught by Watanabe in order to have acceptable flight performance and durability.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 10-13, the combination does not teach the limitations thereof.
However, Watanabe shows that the hardness of the spherical core is a result effective variable. Since applicant has not disclosed that having the hardness of the spherical core having the claimed relationships solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above improving flight performance and it appears that the golf ball of the combination would perform equally well with its performance and durability with a hardness profile in the ranges claimed, absent persuasive evidence that the particular range is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the hardness profile as taught by the combination by claimed relationship ranges as claimed in order to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 15, see claims 1, 2, 13, and 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights