Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 19/028,053

Method And System For Utilizing Radio-Opaque Fillers In Multiple Layers Of Golf Balls

Non-Final OA §103§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Priority
May 27, 2020 — provisional 63/030,494 +3 more
Examiner
GORDEN, RAEANN
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Callaway Golf Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
1242 granted / 1497 resolved
+13.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1537
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
§112
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1497 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (6,390,937) in view of Cavallaro et al. (5,810,678). Claim 4, Marshall discloses a method for using an x-ray machine to determine the thickness of golf ball layers. The golf ball includes a core, an intermediate layer, and a cover. The cover or the intermediate layer includes barium (radio-opaque filler) (abstract). Cavallaro teaches a golf ball comprising a core, an intermediate layer and cover wherein barium sulfate is included in different amounts in the core, intermediate layer and cover. The core includes barium sulfate in the amount of 20.5-25.8% by weight (table 1). The intermediate layer includes 20% barium sulfate (col. 14, lines 38-41). The cover includes barium sulfate in the amount of 30% by weight (col. 14, lines 38-41). One of ordinary skill in the art would use an x-ray machine for a golf ball. One of ordinary skill in the art would vary the concentration to obtain a more precise x-ray image. Claim 5, Marshall discloses an x-ray machine is capable of discerning different layers (col. 8, claim 1). Claim 6, the filler is barium or barium sulfate. One of ordinary skill in the art would vary the concentration to obtain a more precise x-ray image. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,351,423. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘423 claims anticipate the instant 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 on 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 October 7, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766375
GOLF CLUB HEADS WITH NORMALIZED IMPACT RESPONSE
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766370
PUTTER HEAD AND STRIKE FACE INSERT THEREFOR
3y 0m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766369
GOLF CLUB HEAD
2y 10m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12758832
GOLF CLUB HEAD WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS FACE
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12752161
GOLF BALL INCLUDING HYBRID CORE FORMED VIA THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 4m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-5.1%)
2y 2m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1497 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month