Regular readers of the Golf-Patents blog know that Nike Golf is one of the most prolific filers of golf club related patent applications, however you may have noticed that Nike Golf patent applications directed to golf ball technology are almost never mentioned. The reason is that they have very few published patent applications directed to golf ball technology, which is why one of their applications caught my attention last week. The application published as US Pub. No. 20100323817 titled “Golf Ball With Oriented Particles,” which describes the invention as:

A golf ball with a layer of composite material applied to at least one surface of one layer of the ball. The composite material includes a plurality of particles. The particles are shaped to enable specific orientations. A percentage of the particles in the composite material achieve a specific orientation. A portion of at least one of the particles extends from the composite material layer and into an adjacent, surrounding layer. The particles may have a tetrapod shape. The composite layer may be applied as a thin film coating, such as in a primer layer.

Check out these figures!



The application goes on to explain:

[0054] In some embodiments, such as the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, ball 100 may include additional layers between core 104 and cover 108. For example, as shown in FIG. 3, a mantle layer 110 may be provided. Mantle layer 110 may be a thick or thin layer of material, which may be any type of material known in the art. In some embodiments, mantle layer 110 is made from a relatively hard material to obtain certain performance characteristics, such as to help decrease back spin and the tendency of the ball to deform. In other embodiments, mantle layer 110 may be made from a relatively soft material so obtain different performance characteristics, such as to help increase back spin and the tendency of the ball to deform.

[0055] Golf ball 108 includes a cover layer 108. The hardness of cover layer 108 plays a role in the amount of back spin that a golfer will be able to impart to golf ball 100. Traditionally, soft covers are provided for balls that produce more back spin. An example of a soft cover material is balata. Skilled golfers may choose to use a soft cover for the back spin and control properties, but new golfers may find that soft cover balls lack durability. This may be particularly true if the ball is not hit properly with every swing, as the soft cover materials may dent or tear when hit improperly.

[0056] Similarly, harder covers are provided for balls that produce low back spin but, generally, longer carry distance. An example of a hard cover material is an ionomer, such as Surlyn. While more durable than the soft cover balls, hard cover balls are more difficult to make back spin, which can limit the number of play options in a golfer's arsenal.

[0057] Efforts have been made to find a medium cover ball that can produce the desired effects of both the soft cover balls and the hard cover balls. Composite materials have been examined for use in covers. In the embodiments described herein, layers of composite material containing oriented particles are provided at various locations in a golf ball to impart desirable characteristics to the ball.

[0058] As shown in FIG. 4, an embodiment of a golf ball with oriented particles in the coating layers of the golf ball is shown. Two coating layers, a first layer 114 and a second layer 116, are shown surrounding an otherwise uncoated golf ball 112. Uncoated golf ball 112 is essentially all of the layers of golf ball 100 prior to the application of primers, paints, top coatings, or other thin film layers applied to the outer surface of a golf ball. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, first layer 114 is positioned adjacent to and in contact with the outer surface of uncoated golf ball 112. In some embodiments, first layer 114 is adhered, cured to, or otherwise fixedly attached to the outer surface of uncoated golf ball 112 with sufficient adhesive force to withstand repeated high speed impacts with golf clubs. Second coating layer 116 is adjacent to and in contact with the outer surface of first layer 114. In some embodiments, second layer 116 is adhered, cured to, or otherwise fixedly attached to the outer surface of first layer 114 with sufficient adhesive force to withstand repeated high speed impacts with golf clubs.

[0059] FIG. 5 shows an enlarged view of the layers of the golf ball at the surface of the ball. Uncoated ball 112 includes a core 104 and a cover 110. First layer 114 surrounds cover 110. First layer 114 is a composite material layer formed from a matrix material 124 in which a plurality of particles 122 are embedded. The matrix material 124 may be any type of material known in the art, such as a plastic material, a rubber material, or a polymer. In some embodiments, matrix material 124 is a paint primer. The primer is used to increase the adhesion of any subsequently applied paint layers to the material of the cover. The primer matrix material may be any type of primer material known in the art. Various types of lacquer and epoxy are commonly used as primers for golf balls.

[0060] Particles 122 may be any type of shaped particle. Particles 122 are generally provided to increase the hardness of first layer 114, therefore, in some embodiments, particles 122 are selected to have a greater hardness and/or stiffness than matrix material 124. Particles 122 may be made from any material known in the art, such as plastics, composite materials, and metals. In some embodiments, particles 122 are made from zinc oxide.

[0061] Particles 122 are non-uniform or irregularly shaped. The irregular shape may be defined by an irregular surface, an irregular perimeter, protrusions, extensions, prongs or any configuration that allows a particle to be placed on a surface or within a matrix in a particular, knowable orientation. Particles 122 may have the shape of any polygon, geometrical shape, or the like. For example, particles 122 may be cubes, as the cube could be placed on either a leg or the corner (vertex where three legs meet.) A uniform shape would be a shape like a sphere whose orientation within a matrix is not able to be ascertained by simply viewing the particle, the particle orientation may be determined by marking the particle prior to insertion into the matrix.
.
.
.
[0067] As shown in FIGS. 5-8, first coating layer 114 is applied so that at least some particles 122 may obtain a specific, pre-selected orientation as first coating layer 114 dries or cures. For example, in some embodiments, the specific desired orientation of particle 122 when particle 122 is a tetrapod is so that base legs 126 abut or face exterior surface 118 of uncoated ball 112. This specific, pre-selected, desired orientation of particle 122 allows for a predictable response to forces applied to the finished golf ball. For example, when particle 122 is a tetrapod with the base legs 126 abutting or facing exterior surface 118, particle 122 responds to impact forces like when the surface of a tripod is pushed down.

[0068] As shown in FIG. 14, the impact of a club head with a ball can be resolved into a first force 160 and a second force 162, both of which approach top leg 128 at angles. In a proper hit, first force 160 translates through particle 122 to push first base leg 142, second base leg 144, and third base leg 146 into the exterior surface 118 of the uncoated ball, as indicated by arrows 164. This response can allow a designer to manipulate the spin of a ball in at least one additional way. If the material for the cover is soft, particle 122 can dig into the surface to reduce the effect that particle 122 has on spin. If the material for the cover is hard, the cover resists the pressing of particle 122 into the cover and the impact on spin can be increased. Under test conditions, it is determined that when the force angle is less than 19.5 degrees, spin is decreased. When the force angle is between 19.5 degrees and 35.3 degrees, spin changes randomly. When the force angle is greater than 35.3 degrees, spin is increased. The spin consistency is increased for force angles less than 19.5 degrees and force angles greater than 35.3 degrees.

[0069] In a proper hit, second force 162 twists particle 122 against exterior surface 118 of the uncoated ball, as indicated by arrow 166. Because of the varying angles of the legs of tetrapod particle 122, if particle 122 were hit when positioned in a different orientation, the forces would translate through particle 122 differently.
.
.
.
[0072] Another advantage to providing particles 122 of a similar or larger size than the thickness of matrix material 124 is to allow at least a portion of at least one of particles 122 to extend through an outer surface 119 of matrix material 124, as shown most clearly in FIG. 6. This extension allows a portion 130 of particle 122 to become embedded within the adjacent layer, second coating layer 116. This linkage of the coating layers allows for better adhesion of the layers, and links the mechanical response of the layers together. Thus, when exposed to an impact force, first coating layer 114 and second coating layer 116 will respond more like a linked system as opposed to separate systems with a boundary layer. Not only does this mechanism assist in controlling back spin by stiffening both layers, but this can also help prevent the layers from delaminating over the lifetime use of the golf ball.
.
.
.
[0080] FIGS. 16 and 17 show two tests of back spin of third test ball 204, fifth test ball 208, sixth test ball 210, eighth test ball 214, ninth test ball 216, tenth test ball 218 (FIG. 17 only), and eleventh test ball 220 (FIG. 16 only) relative to a control ball, seventh test ball 212. Third test ball 204 has the same construction as fifth test ball 208, except that third test ball 204 has a composite coating with shaped and oriented Panatetra particles. Similarly, ninth test ball 216 has the same construction as eighth test ball 214, except that ninth test ball 216 has a composite coating with shaped and oriented Panatetra particles. The balls were hit with various driver conditions, as determined by ball speed measured in mph, launch angle in degrees, and back spin in rpm. As can be seen in the figures, in the first test, shown in FIG. 16, third test ball 204 has lower back spin than fifth test ball 208 in three (3) of the six (6) driver conditions. Ninth test ball 216 has lower back spin in five (5) of the six (6) driver conditions. In the second test, shown in FIG. 17, third test ball 204 has lower back spin than fifth test ball 208 in all of the driver conditions. Ninth test ball 216 has lower back spin than eighth test ball 214 in only one of the three (3) driver conditions in which both ninth test ball 216 and eighth test ball 214 were tested. This data suggests that the composite coating can decrease spin for some players.

[0081] FIGS. 18 and 19 show two tests of total distance in yards achieved by third test ball 204, sixth test ball 210, eighth test ball 214, ninth test ball 216, tenth test ball 218 (FIG. 19 only), and eleventh test ball 220 (FIG. 18 only) relative to a control ball, seventh test ball 212 under various driver conditions. In the first test, ninth test ball 216 travels further than eighth test ball 214 in all but one (1) of the driver conditions. In the second test, shown in FIG. 19, ninth test ball 216 travels further than eighth test ball 214 in all three (3) of the driver conditions in which both balls were tested. This data suggests that the composite coating can increase total distance.

[0082] FIG. 20 shows back spin measured in rpm versus side spin measured in rpm for first test ball 200, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fourth test ball 206, fifth test ball 208, sixth test ball 210, seventh test ball 212, and eighth test ball 214 when hit under a specific driver condition. Of the balls tested, first test ball 200, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fourth test ball 206 have composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles. Fifth test ball 208 has the same construction as first test ball 200, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fourth test ball 206 but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. Notably, fifth test ball 208 has higher back spin and side spin than first test ball 200, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fourth test ball 206. This data suggests that the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles can reduce both back and side spin.

[0083] FIG. 21 shows total distance measured in yards versus distance offline measured in yards for first test ball 200, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fourth test ball 206, fifth test ball 208, sixth test ball 210, seventh test ball 212, and eighth test ball 214 when hit under a specific driver condition. Of the balls tested, first test ball 200, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fourth test ball 206 have composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles. Notably, three of the four tested balls with composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles travel at least as far as fifth test ball 208, with two of those balls, first test ball 200 and second test ball 202 having significantly lower offline distances than fifth test ball 208. This data suggests that under some conditions, balls with composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles can fly straighter without loss of total distance compared to a similar ball that lacks the composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles.

[0084] FIG. 22 shows back spin measured in rpm versus dynamic loft angle/angle of attack measured in degrees for second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fifth test ball 208, eighth test ball 214, and ninth test ball 216 when hit by an HS driver swung at 85 mph. Of the balls tested, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, and ninth test ball 216 have composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles. Fifth test ball 208 has the same construction as second test ball 202 and third test ball 204, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. Notably, second test ball 202 and third test ball 204 tend to spin less than fifth test ball 208. Eighth test ball 214 has the same construction as ninth test ball 216, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. Ninth test ball 216 consistently spins less than eighth test ball. This data suggests that the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles can reduce back spin at various dynamic loft conditions.

[0085] FIG. 23 shows side spin measured in rpm versus face angle/club path for second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fifth test ball 208, sixth test ball 210, seventh test ball 212, eighth test ball 214, ninth test ball 216, and tenth test ball 218 when hit by an HS driver swung at 95 mph. Of the balls tested, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, and ninth test ball 216 have composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles. Fifth test ball 208 has the same construction as second test ball 202 and third test ball 204, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. Notably, second test ball 202 and third test ball 204 tend to spin less than fifth test ball 208. This data suggests that the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles can reduce side spin at various face angles.

[0086] FIG. 24 shows back spin measured in rpm versus dynamic loft angle/angle of attack measured in degrees for second test ball 202, fifth test ball 208, and eighth test ball 214 when hit by a 6-iron. Fifth test ball 208 has the same construction as second test ball 202, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. Second test ball 202 tends to spin less than fifth test ball 208. This data suggests that the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles can reduce back spin at various dynamic loft conditions for irons as well as drivers.

[0087] FIG. 25 shows back spin measured in rpm versus dynamic loft angle/angle of attack measured in degrees for second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fifth test ball 208, sixth test ball 210, seventh test ball 212, eighth test ball 214, ninth test ball 216, and tenth test ball 218 when hit by a 9-iron. Fifth test ball 208 has the same construction as second test ball 202 and third test ball 204, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. Second test ball 202 and third test ball 204 tend to spin less than fifth test ball 208. Eighth test ball 214 has the same construction as ninth test ball 216, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. At some loft angles, ninth test ball 216 spins less than eighth test ball 214. This data suggests that the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles can reduce back spin at various dynamic loft conditions for irons.

[0088] FIG. 26 shows back spin measured in rpm versus dynamic loft/attack angle measured in degrees for first test ball 200, second test ball 202, fourth test ball 206, fifth test ball 208, sixth test ball 210, seventh test ball 212, eighth test ball 214, ninth test ball 216, and tenth test ball 218 when hit by a wedge. Of the balls tested, first test ball 200, second test ball 202, third test ball 204, fourth test ball 206, and ninth test ball 216 have composite coatings with shaped and oriented particles. Fifth test ball 208 has the same construction as first test ball 200, second test ball 202, and fourth test ball 206, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. First test ball 200, second test ball 202, and fourth test ball 206 tend to spin more than fifth test ball 208. Eighth test ball 214 has the same construction as ninth test ball 216, but lacks the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles. Ninth test ball 216 spins more than eighth test ball. This data suggests that the composite coating with shaped and oriented particles can increase back spin at various dynamic loft conditions for wedges.

Finally, a ball that will fly straighter and reduce spin when I need less spin, while increasing spin when I need more spin! It is a panacea; now I would be able to be on Tour if only it could prevent shanks with a wedge from the center of the fairway at 100 yards.

David Dawsey   – Keeping an Eye on Golf Ball Technology

PS – click HERE to read more interesting golf ball patent posts