DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omaha et al (“Omaha”) (US 2009/0221387) in view of Omaha et al (“Omaha 2”) (US 2010/0093466).
Re claim 1, Omaha discloses a golf ball (2) comprising a spherical core (4), and an outermost cover (6) positioned outside the intermediate layer (as modified below) and having a plurality of dimples (10) formed thereon (Fig. 1), wherein the spherical core (4) is formed from a rubber composition ([0027]) containing a base rubber ([0027]), a co-crosslinking agent ([0028]), and a crosslinking initiator ([0031]), the base rubber ([0027]) contains a natural rubber ([0027]), and an occupation ratio ([0086]) of a total area of the plurality of dimples (10) in a surface area of a virtual sphere that is assumed to have no dimples on the outermost cover (8) is 45% or more and less than 75% ([0086] disclosing less than 75%, as well as 73%, being more than 45% and less than 75%),
but fails to disclose an intermediate layer covering the spherical core ([0116]).
However, Omaha 2 discloses an intermediate layer covering the spherical core.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha with an intermediate layer covering the spherical core as disclosed by Omaha 2 in order to balance distance and control via managing spin rates ([0028]).
Re claim 7, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a slab hardness of an intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is greater than a slab hardness of a cover composition forming the outermost cover.
However, Omaha 2 discloses wherein a slab hardness of an intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is greater than a slab hardness of a cover composition forming the outermost cover ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein a slab hardness of an intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is greater than a slab hardness of a cover composition forming the outermost cover as disclosed by Omaha 2 in order to provide ball speed while maintaining high spin control.
Re claim 9, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, Omaha 2 discloses wherein an intermediate layer composition ([0090]) forming the intermediate layer ([0090]) is a resin composition ([0022]) containing an ionomer resin ([0022]) as a base resin ([0022]), and a slab hardness of the intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is 50 or more in Shore D hardness ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein an intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is a resin composition containing an ionomer resin as a base resin, and a slab hardness of the intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer is 50 or more in Shore D hardness as disclosed by Omaha 2 in order to provide ball speed while maintaining high spin control.
Re claim 16, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the slab hardness of the intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer ranges from 50 to 74 in Shore D hardness.
However, Omaha 2 discloses wherein the slab hardness of the intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer ranges from 50 to 74 in Shore D hardness ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein the slab hardness of the intermediate layer composition forming the intermediate layer ranges from 50 to 74 in Shore D hardness as disclosed by Omaha 2 in order to provide ball speed while maintaining high spin control.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omaha et al (“Omaha”) (US 2009/0221387) in view of Omaha et al (“Omaha 2”) (US 2010/0093466) and Sakamine et al (“Sakamine”) (US 2015/0273277).
Re claim 2, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein 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 (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 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 HO<H2.5<H5.o<Hr.5<Hlo<HI2.5<H15<Hs, and the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core is 70 or less in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein a center hardness (H0) of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), a hardness (H2.5) at a point having a radial distance of 2.5 mm from a center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), a hardness (H7.5) at a point having a radial distance of 7.5 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), a hardness (H12.5) at a point having a radial distance of 12.5 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), a hardness (H15) at a point having a radial distance of 15 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core satisfy a relationship of HO<H2.5<H5.o<Hr.5<Hlo<HI2.5<H15<Hs (Table 2, Golf Ball 1), and the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core is 70 or less in Shore C hardness (Table 2, Golf Ball 1, showing center hardness of 46.9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein 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 (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 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 HO<H2.5<H5.o<Hr.5<Hlo<HI2.5<H15<Hs, and the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core is 70 or less in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability.
Re claim 3, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein 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 (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 HO<H2.5<H5.o<Hr.5<Hlo<HI2.5<H15<Hs, and the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core is 70 or less in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein a center hardness (H0) of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 4), a hardness (H2.5) at a point having a radial distance of 2.5 mm from a center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 4), a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 4), a hardness (H12.5) at a point having a radial distance of 12.5 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 4), a hardness (H15) at a point having a radial distance of 15 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 4), and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core satisfy relationships of H2.5-H0≥3.0 (49.3-46.3 = 3), H12.5-H10≥3.0 (70.1-67=3.1) and H15-H12.5≥3.0 (77.1-71=6) in Shore C hardness.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein 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 (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 HO<H2.5<H5.o<Hr.5<Hlo<HI2.5<H15<Hs, and the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core is 70 or less in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability.
Re claim 4, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from a 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, and a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core satisfy relationships of H7.5-H5.0<3.0 and H10-H7.5<3.0 in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein (Table 2, Golf Ball 5) a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from a center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 5), a hardness (H7.5) at a point having a radial distance of 7.5 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 5), and a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core (Table 2, Golf Ball 5) satisfy relationships of H7.5-H5.0<3.0 (64.9-64.5=.5) and H10-H7.5<3.0 (67-64.9=2.1) in Shore C hardness.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein a hardness (H5.0) at a point having a radial distance of 5.0 mm from a 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, and a hardness (H10) at a point having a radial distance of 10 mm from the center of the spherical core satisfy relationships of H7.5-H5.0<3.0 and H10-H7.5<3.0 in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability.
Re claim 5, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a hardness difference (Hs-HO) between a center hardness (HO) of the spherical core and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core is 20 or more in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein a hardness difference (Hs-HO) (Table 2, Golf Ball 1) between a center hardness (HO) of the spherical core (4) and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core (4) is 20 or more in Shore C hardness (39, per Table 2, Golf Ball 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein a hardness difference (Hs-HO) between a center hardness (HO) of the spherical core and a surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core is 20 or more in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability.
Re claim 8, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, wherein a cover composition ([0064]) forming the outermost cover (6) is a resin composition ([0064]) containing a urethane resin ([0064]) as a base resin ([0064]), but fails to disclose a slab hardness of the cover composition forming the outermost cover is 40 or less in Shore D hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses a slab hardness ([0072]) of the cover composition (12) forming the outermost cover (12) is 40 or less in Shore D hardness ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein a slab hardness of the cover composition forming the outermost cover is 40 or less in Shore D hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to provide a spin golf ball while improving flight distance with driver shots, and allowing the ball to stop on the green due to high spin rates ([0072]).
Re claim 10, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core ranges from 42 to 70 in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core ranges from 42 to 70 in Shore C hardness (Table 2 Golf Balls 1-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein the center hardness (HO) of the spherical core ranges from 42 to 70 in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability, and to control the ball’s deformation, energy transfer and spin rate.
Re claim 11, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 2, but fails to disclose and a surface hardness of the spherical core ([0039]), but fails to disclose wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 70 to 90 in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 70 to 90 in Shore C hardness (Table 2 Golf Balls 1-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein the surface hardness (Hs) of the spherical core ranges from 70 to 90 in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability, and to control the ball’s deformation, energy transfer and spin rate.
Re claim 12, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the center hardness (HO), the hardness (H2.5), the hardness (H10) the hardness (H12.5), and the hardness (H15) satisfy relationships of 3.0≤H2.5-H0, 3.0≤H12.5-H10≤11.0, and 3.0≤H15-H12.5≤10 in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein the center hardness (HO) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5), the hardness (H2.5) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5), the hardness (H10) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5), the hardness (H12.5) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5), and the hardness (H15) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5) satisfy relationships of 3.0≤H2.5-H0 (63.8-62=1.8) in Shore C hardness.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein the center hardness (HO), the hardness (H2.5), the hardness (H10) the hardness (H12.5), and the hardness (H15) satisfy relationships of 3.0≤H2.5-H0 in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability, and to control the ball’s deformation, energy transfer and spin rate.
Sakamine further discloses 3.0≤H12.5-H10≤11.0 (70.1-67=3.1) and 3.0≤H15-H12.5≤10 (72.7-70.1=2.6) thus failing to disclose the claimed ranges 3.0≤H12.5-H10≤11.0, and 3.0≤H15-H12.5≤10.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha as modified by Sakamine wherein 3.0≤H12.5-H10≤11.0, and 3.0≤H15-H12.5≤10 in order to to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability, and to control the ball’s deformation, energy transfer and spin rate. Where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 13, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the hardness (H5), the hardness (H7.5), and the hardness (H10) satisfy relationships of 0.2≤H7.5-H5<3.0, and 0.1≤H10- H7.5<3.0 in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein the hardness (H5) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5), the hardness (H7.5) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5), and the hardness (H10) (Table 2 Golf Ball 5) satisfy relationships of 0.2≤H7.5-H5<3.0 (64.9-64.5=.4), and 0.1≤H10- H7.5<3.0 (67-64.9=2.1) in Shore C hardness.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein the hardness (H5), the hardness (H7.5), and the hardness (H10) satisfy relationships of 0.2≤H7.5-H5<3.0, and 0.1≤H10- H7.5<3.0 in Shore C hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability, and to control the ball’s deformation, energy transfer and spin rate.
Re claim 14, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the hardness difference (Hs-HO) ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore C hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses wherein the hardness difference (Hs-HO) ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore C hardness (Table 2 Golf Balls 1-3, Golf Balls 7-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein the hardness difference (Hs-HO) ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore C hardness. as disclosed by Sakamine in order to optimize balances between distance and control, allowing for ball compression for high launch, while providing outer durability, and to control the ball’s deformation, energy transfer and spin rate.
Re claim 15, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the slab hardness of the cover composition forming the outermost cover ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore D hardness.
However, Sakamine discloses a slab hardness ([0072]) of the cover composition (12) forming the outermost cover (12) ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore D hardness ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein the slab hardness of the cover composition forming the outermost cover ranges from 20 to 40 in Shore D hardness as disclosed by Sakamine in order to provide a spin golf ball while improving flight distance with driver shots, and allowing the ball to stop on the green due to high spin rates ([0072]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omaha et al (“Omaha”) (US 2009/0221387) in view of Omaha et al (“Omaha 2”) (US 2010/0093466) and Sasaki (US 2003/0232664).
Re claim 6, Omaha discloses the golf ball according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an amount of the natural rubber ranges from 20 mass % to 100 mass % in 100 mass % of the base rubber.
However, Sasaki discloses wherein an amount of the natural rubber ([0052]) ranges from 20 mass % to 100 mass % in 100 mass % of the base rubber ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf ball of Omaha wherein an amount of the natural rubber ranges from 20 mass % to 100 mass % in 100 mass % of the base rubber as disclosed by Sakamine in order to provide exceptional elasticity, resilience, and a soft feel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights