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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the three layer golf ball must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-7, 9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (10,150,008) in view of Tarao (2013/0046060) and Simonutti et al. (2004/0038752). Claim 1, Sullivan discloses a golf ball comprising at least one intermediate layer formed between a core and a cover, the cover is formed of a resin composition that includes the following components (I) and (II): (I) polyurethane (II) (meth)acrylic block copolymer (col. 3, lines 14-25: col 4, lines 14-18). Sullivan does not disclose the properties of the methacrylate block copolymer. Tarao teaches methacrylate block copolymer such as Kurarity LA 2250 for golf ball covers [0052]. Kurarity LA 2250 is identical to applicant's methacrylate block copolymer (page 13 of instant spec) therefore the cover properties such as condition (1): 0.10 ≤ VRL×VRH ≤ 0.26 (1) [in the above condition, VRL represents a ratio (η1/η0) of a viscosity η1 (dPa·s) at 210°C and a viscosity η0 (dPa·s) at 200°C at a shear rate of 1,216 (1/sec), and VRH represents a ratio (η3/η2) of a viscosity η3 (dPa·s) at 230°C and a viscosity η2 (dPa·s) at 220°C at the shear rate of 1,216 (1/sec)] will also be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the methacrylate block copolymer for the desired performance and resilience. Sullivan does not disclose the specific gravity among the layer. Simonutti teaches in a standard deviation of a specific gravity of each layer of the core, the intermediate layer, and the cover is within 0.07 or the values are the same (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the specific gravity of the layers for the desired balance. Claim 2, Sullivan discloses the rations of I and II are at least 98:2 to 50:50 (abstract). Claims 3-7, Tarao teaches methacrylate block copolymer such as Kurarity LA 2250 for golf ball covers [0052]. Kurarity LA 2250 is identical to applicant's methacrylate block copolymer II (page 13 of instant spec) therefore the material properties of II will be identical. Claim 9, under USGA rules for a golf ball the maximum mass is 45.93 grams and the minimum diameter is 42.67 mm. Using I = 2/5 mr2, the moment of inertia would be 83.6 g·cm2. Claim 11, Simonutti teaches all the layers of the core, the intermediate layer, and the cover have a specific gravity of from 1.10 to 1.13 g/cm3 [0015, 0019, 0024]. Claim 12, Simonutti teaches a relationship between the specific gravities of the intermediate layer and the cover satisfies the following condition: -0.03 ≤ (specific gravity of intermediate layer - specific gravity of cover) ≤ 0.03) (abstract). Claim 13, Simonutti teaches a material of the intermediate layer contains barium sulfate as a specific gravity adjusting material [0021]. Claim 14, Sullivan discloses a material hardness of the cover is from 40 to 52 on the Shore D hardness scale (col. 8, lines 55-67). Claim 15, Simonutti teaches the golf ball has a deflection under a 200-pound load from 0.085 to 0.105 inch or 2.2 to 2.7 mm [0029]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the methacrylate block copolymer for the desired performance and resilience. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the specific gravity of the layers for the desired balance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 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
July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights