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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2021063821 A; pub. Apr. 22, 2021) in view of Petermann (US 2023/0194243 A1; pub. Jun. 22, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. disclose: A method of analyzing at least one characteristic of a golf ball comprising at least a core (fig.2(a) -2(b) item 502) and a cover layer (fig.2(a) -2(b) item 501), the method comprising:
acquiring imaging data related to at least one characteristic of a golf ball via at least one terahertz scanner assembly (para. [0082]); and
wherein the at least one characteristic of the golf ball includes at least one of:
(i) a thickness of at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer;
(ii) a composition of at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer;
(iii) a presence of at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer;
(iv) a thickness of the cover layer (para. [0082]);
(v) a thickness of a casing layer surrounding the cover layer;
(vi) a composition of the cover layer; or
(vii) a composition of a casing layer surrounding the cover layer.
Takahashi et al. are silent about: generating at least one parameter from the imaging data and comparing the at least one parameter against a threshold value,
In a similar field of endeavor Petermann discloses: generating at least one parameter from the imaging data and comparing the at least one parameter against a threshold value (claim 4) motivated by the benefits for improved measurement accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved measurement accuracy, 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 method of Takahashi et al. with the teachings of Petermann.
Regarding claim 2, Petermann discloses: the at least one terahertz scanner assembly comprises a plurality of terahertz scanners that are each arranged at a different orientation relative to object (para. [0057]) motivated by the benefits for a more complete object inspection.
Regarding claim 3, Petermann discloses: the at least one terahertz scanner assembly comprises at least one first terahertz scanner arranged at a first angle relative to object and at least one second terahertz scanner arranged at a second angle relative to the object, wherein the first angle is different than the second angle (para. [0057]) motivated by the benefits for a more complete object inspection.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi et al. disclose: spinning the golf ball (para. [0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi et al. disclose: the method is non-destructive relative to the golf ball, and the method employs non-ionizing radiation (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi et al. disclose: an imaging area of the at least one terahertz scanner assembly is configured to be focused only on a periphery of the golf ball (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi et al. disclose: the periphery of the golf ball only includes a portion of at least one paint or coating layer, and a portion of the cover layer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi et al. disclose: the periphery of the golf ball only includes a portion of at least one paint or coating layer, a portion of the cover layer, and a portion of a casing layer surrounding the cover layer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 6 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2021063821 A; pub. Apr. 22, 2021) in view of Petermann (US 2023/0194243 A1; pub. Jun. 22, 2023) and further in view of Ito et al. (US 2017/0234792 A1; pub. Aug. 17, 2017).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: generating a notification when the at least one parameter exceeds the threshold value.
In a similar field of endeavor Ito et al. disclose: generating a notification when the at least one parameter exceeds the threshold value (para. [0131]) motivated by the benefits for improved quality control.
In light of the benefits for improved quality control, 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 method of Takahashi et al. and Petermann with the teachings of Ito et al.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Takahashi et al., Petermann and Ito et al. disclose: A method of analyzing at least one characteristic of a golf ball via non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, the golf ball comprising at least a core and a cover layer, the method comprising: directing an imaging area of at least one terahertz scanner assembly at a periphery of the golf ball, wherein the periphery of the golf ball only includes a portion of at least one paint or coating layer surrounding the cover layer, and a portion of the cover layer; acquiring imaging data related to at least one characteristic of a golf ball via the at least one terahertz scanner assembly, wherein the at least one characteristic of the golf ball includes at least one of:
(i) a thickness of at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer;
(ii) a composition of at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer;
(iii) a presence of at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer;
(iv) a thickness of the cover layer;
(v) a thickness of a casing layer surrounding the cover layer;
(vi) a composition of the cover layer; or
(vii) a composition of a casing layer surrounding the cover layer; generating at least one parameter from the imaging data and comparing the at least one parameter against at least one threshold value; and
generating a notification when the at least one parameter exceeds the at least one threshold value (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2021063821 A; pub. Apr. 22, 2021) in view of Petermann (US 2023/0194243 A1; pub. Jun. 22, 2023) and further in view of Ariessohn et al. (WO 2012/050612 A1; pub. Apr. 19, 2012).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: the imaging data requires less than 10 nanoseconds.
In a similar field of endeavor Ariessohn et al. disclose: the imaging data requires less than 10 nanoseconds (pg.2 L15-26, pg.20 L18-20) motivated by the benefits for real-time inspection (Ariessohn et al. pg.4 L21-33).
In light of the benefits for real-time inspection as taught by Ariessohn et al., 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 method of Takahashi et al. and Petermann with the teachings of Ariessohn et al.
Claims 9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2021063821 A; pub. Apr. 22, 2021) in view of Petermann (US 2023/0194243 A1; pub. Jun. 22, 2023) and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2010/0148070 A1; pub. Jun. 17, 2010).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the periphery of the golf ball only includes a portion of at least one paint or coating layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Ho et al. disclose: the periphery of the object only includes a portion of at least one paint or coating layer (para. [0013]-[0014]) motivated by the benefits for improved product quality (Ho et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved quality control as taught by Ho et al., 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 method of Takahashi et al. and Petermann with the teachings of Ho et al.
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: the at least one terahertz scanner assembly is configured to detect imperfections in an outermost paint or coating layer of the golf ball.
In a similar field of endeavor Ho et al. disclose: the at least one terahertz scanner assembly is configured to detect imperfections in an outermost paint or coating layer of the object (para. [0268]) motivated by the benefits for improved product quality (Ho et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved quality control as taught by Ho et al., 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 method of Takahashi et al. and Petermann with the teachings of Ho et al.
Regarding claim 13, the combined references are silent about: the at least one characteristic of the golf ball includes both the thickness of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer, and the composition of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Ho et al. disclose: the at least one characteristic of the object includes both the thickness of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer, and the composition of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer (para. [0013]-[0014], [0221]) motivated by the benefits for improved product quality (Ho et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved quality control as taught by Ho et al., 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 method of Takahashi et al. and Petermann with the teachings of Ho et al.
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the at least one characteristic of the golf ball includes both the thickness of the cover layer, and the composition of the cover layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Ho et al. disclose: the at least one characteristic of the object includes both the thickness of the cover layer, and the composition of the cover layer (para. [0013]-[0014], [0221]) motivated by the benefits for improved product quality (Ho et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved quality control as taught by Ho et al., 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 method of Takahashi et al. and Petermann with the teachings of Ho et al.
Regarding claim 15, the combined references are silent about: the at least one characteristic of the golf ball includes both the thickness of the casing layer, and the composition of the casing layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Ho et al. disclose: the at least one characteristic of the object includes both the thickness of the casing layer, and the composition of the casing layer (para. [0013]-[0014], [0221]) motivated by the benefits for improved product quality (Ho et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved quality control as taught by Ho et al., 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 method of Takahashi et al. and Petermann with the teachings of Ho et al.
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2021063821 A; pub. Apr. 22, 2021) in view of Petermann (US 2023/0194243 A1; pub. Jun. 22, 2023) in view of Ito et al. (US 2017/0234792 A1; pub. Aug. 17, 2017) and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2010/0148070 A1; pub. Jun. 17, 2010).
Regarding claim 17, the combined references are silent about: the at least one characteristic of the golf ball includes both the thickness of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer, and the composition of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer.
In a similar field of endeavor Ho et al. disclose: the at least one characteristic of the object includes both the thickness of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer, and the composition of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer (para. [0013]-[0014], [0221]) motivated by the benefits for improved product quality (Ho et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved quality control as taught by Ho et al., 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 method of Takahashi et al., Petermann and Ito et al. with the teachings of Ho et al.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Takahashi et al., Petermann, Ito et al. and Ho et al. disclose: the at least one characteristic of the object includes both the thickness of the cover layer, and the composition of the cover layer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 17).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Takahashi et al., Petermann, Ito et al. and Ho et al. disclose: the at least one characteristic of the object includes both the thickness of the casing layer and the composition of the casing layer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 17).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Takahashi et al., Petermann, Ito et al. and Ho et al. disclose: the at least one characteristic of the object includes only the presence of the at least one paint or coating layer on the cover layer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights