DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Claim 1 finds support from Fig. 10a and 10B and par. [0078] of this CIP application and based specifically on using the term “extension edges”. These drawings and the language are not found in parent application 17/747,248. As such, claims 1-20 receive a filing/priority date of 11/20/24.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 8, 10, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the “first channel circle” and the “second channel circle” are completely imaginary in nature and are not actually structure. As such, they should be referred to as “imaginary”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “inner dimple circle” is completely imaginary in nature and is not actually structure. As such, it should be referred to as “imaginary”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “generally” in claims 1 and 17, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-20 are rejected because they are dependent on claims 1 and 17.
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 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US Pub. No. 2002/0165044 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses a golf ball (Fig. 6 and abstract), comprising: a generally spherical surface (Fig. 6; noting this would be obvious for a well-known golf ball, see par. [0002]); and a plurality of dimples separated by a land area formed on the surface (Fig. 6; noting the “land area” is in between the dimples), wherein at least one of the dimples (Fig. 6a below; noting it would be obvious that the dimples as shown in Fig. 6a could be used on the golf ball as shown in Fig. 6) comprises: a perimeter edge connected to the land area (Fig. 6a below); and a dimple surface surrounded by the perimeter edge (Fig. 6a below; ; noting this is obvious, the perimeter edge created by the combined contour of the extending channels and the circular dimples) and comprising a plurality of channels (par. [0032], item 52) and a plurality of channel edges (Fig. 6a below), wherein at least one of (i) the plurality of channels or (ii) the plurality of channel edges extend continuously from the perimeter edge to an intersection at a dimple center (Fig. 6a below; noting the Examiner construing this broadly, and noting both extend from the perimeter to an intersection at the center), wherein the plurality of channels comprise at least a first type channel and a second type channel (Fig. 6a below; noting first and second alternate), wherein the plurality of channel edges comprise a plurality of shared edges (Fig. 6a below), wherein each shared edge is shared between a first type channel that is directly adjacent to a second type channel (Fig. 6a below), wherein each shared edge extends radially from the dimple center to a terminal end and includes an intersection point therebetween (Fig. 6a below), wherein the portion of the shared edge that extends from the intersection point to the terminal end is an extension edge (Fig. 6a below), and wherein the extension edge is a portion of the perimeter edge (Fig. 6a below; noting the extension edge runs to the terminal end, by definition, which is on the perimeter edge, so that broadly speaking, the extension edge is a portion of the perimeter edge because it runs to the terminal end located at an edge). The above is given under a 103 because it would be obvious to a POSA that the dimple represented in Figs. 6A could be utilized on a golf ball like the one presented in Fig. 6 because doing so would be a simple substitution of one dimple type for another dimple type to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use dimples on a golf ball).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan discloses that the first type channels include an area having a plan shape of a first circular sector of a first channel circle (Fig. 6a above; noting the first channel circle is completely imaginary and using “having” makes the language open ended; as such, this can be the area of plan shape encompassed by the imaginary circle under a broadest reasonable interpretation) and the second type channels include an area having a plan shape of a second circular sector of a second channel circle (Fig. 6a above; noting the second channel circle is also completely imaginary and using “includes” also makes the language open ended; as such, this can be the area of plan shape encompassed by the imaginary circle under a broadest reasonable interpretation), and wherein a diameter of the first channel circle is greater than a diameter of the second channel circle (Fig. 6a above).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan discloses that each shared edge includes a terminal end, and the first channel circle intersects all of the terminal ends (Fig. 6a above).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan discloses that the second channel circle intersects all of the intersection points (Fig. 6a above).
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan discloses that the perimeter edge further comprises connector edges at distal portions of the first type channels and second type channels (Fig. 6a above).
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan discloses that the connector edges of the first type channels are each connected to at least one terminal end (Fig. 6a above).
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan discloses that the connector edges of the second type channels are each connected to at least one intersection point (Fig. 6a above; noting they are connected via the extension edge).
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan discloses that that first type channel further comprises a second area between the perimeter edge and the first channel circle (Fig. 6a above; noting this would be the portion of the channel that is out past the “first channel circle” as shown above).
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan discloses that the portion of the perimeter edge in the second area of the first type channel connects terminal ends of shared edges (Fig. 6a above; noting this is obvious as shown in the annotated drawing).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan discloses that each second type channel further comprises a second area between the perimeter edge and the second channel circle (Fig. 6a above; noting this is obvious as shown in the annotated drawing).
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan discloses that the portion of the perimeter edge in the second area of the second type channel connects intersection points of shared edges (Fig. 6a above; noting this is obvious as shown in the annotated drawing).
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that Sullivan does not specifically disclose that the perimeter edges in the second areas of the second type channels each peak at an inner dimple circle, wherein the inner dimple circle has a diameter that is less than the diameter of the first channel circle. However, the Examiner notes that the first circle, which is imaginary, is dictated by the location of “terminal ends” of the first channel. In claim 1, applicant never actually defines what it means to be the “terminal end” (i.e. the structure that creates the “terminal end” is never defined and the Examiner does not import limitations from the specification/drawing into the claims). As such, looking at a different embodiment of Sullivan in Fig. 6b, the “termination points” can be selected at a location outside the circle created by the perimeter of the circular dimple such that the second channels peak at an inner circle that has a diameter that is less than the diameter of the first circle (noting the Examine does not import any limitations into what shape is required to make it “peak” other than it is “the highest level” of the channel). Use of the truncated channel shapes in Fig. 6b in conjunction with Fig. 6a (which show numerous channels having shared side walls) would a simple substitution of truncated channels for normal extending channels that have shared side edges to create a dimple with shared side edges that also has truncated channels.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Sullivan discloses that the perimeter edge comprises at least ten extension edges (Fig. 6a noting thirty channels or thirty extension edges makes obvious “at least ten”).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Sullivan discloses that the perimeter edge comprises at least twenty extension edges (Fig. 6a noting thirty channels or thirty extension edges makes obvious “at least ten”).
Regarding claim 15, Sullivan discloses that the plurality of channels and the plurality of channel edges are rotationally symmetric about the dimple center (Fig. 6a above; noting this is obvious for both 6a and 6b).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan discloses a golf ball (Fig. 6 and abstract), comprising: a generally spherical surface (Fig. 6; noting this would be obvious for a well-known golf ball, see par. [0002]); and a plurality of dimples separated by a land area formed on the surface (Fig. 6; noting the “land area” is in between the dimples ), wherein at least one of the dimples (Fig. 6a above; noting it would be obvious that the dimples as shown in Fig. 6a could be used on the golf ball as shown in Fig. 6) comprises: a perimeter edge connected to the land area (Fig. 6a above); and a dimple surface surrounded by the perimeter edge (Fig. 6a above; noting this is obvious, the perimeter edge created by the combined contour of the extending channels and the circular dimples) and comprising a plurality of channels and a plurality of channel edges (Fig. 6a above), wherein the plurality of channels comprise at least a first type channel and a second type channel (Fig. 6a above; noting first and second alternate), wherein the first type channels include an area having a plan shape of a first circular sector of a first channel circle (Fig. 6a above; noting the first channel circle is completely imaginary and using “having” makes the language open ended; as such, this can be the area of plan shape encompassed by the imaginary circle) and the second type channels include an area having a plan shape of a second circular sector of a second channel circle (Fig. 6a above; noting the second channel circle is also completely imaginary and using “includes” also makes the language open ended; as such, this can be the area of plan shape encompassed by the imaginary circle under a broadest reasonable interpretation), and wherein a diameter of the first channel circle is greater than a diameter of the second channel circle (Fig. 6a above) such that the first type channels include extension areas (Fig. 6a above; noting they both include extension areas as annotated). The above is given under a 103 because it would be obvious to a POSA that the dimple represented in Figs. 6A could be utilized on a golf ball like the one presented in Fig. 6 because doing so would be a simple substitution of one dimple type for another dimple type to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use dimples on a golf ball).
Regarding claim 18, Sullivan discloses that the extension areas include extension edges that are both a portion of a channel edge and a portion of the perimeter edge (Fig. 6a above; noting the “extension edge” as labeled runs to the terminal end, by definition for at least claim 1, which is on the perimeter edge, so that broadly speaking, the extension edge is a portion of the perimeter edge because it runs to the terminal end and it is clearly part of the channel edge because it is defined by the channel edge, or alternatively, for claims 17-20 the “extension edge” can run from the intersection point to the outermost tip of the channel because it is not specifically defined).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US Pub. No. 2002/0165044 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Aoyama (US Pub. No. 2003/0220158 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that Sullivan does not specifically disclose that the plurality of channels and the plurality of channel edges are not rotationally symmetric about the dimple center. However, Aoyama discloses a similar dimple wherein the channels can be rotationally symmetric (Fig. 3) or rotationally asymmetric (Fig. 9A). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sullivan to make the plurality of channels and the plurality of channel edges not rotationally symmetric about the dimple center as taught by Aoyama because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a dimple with channels and a dimple with channels that can be symmetric or asymmetric about a center) according to known methods (making the channels asymmetric about a center) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use channels in a dimple, the dimples being asymmetric about the center in order to alter the aerodynamics of the golf ball).
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
9/21/26
Prosecution Insights