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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 17-19, 21-22 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the method of claim 1” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-14, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (20040092329) in view of Cheng (6866593) and ITO (20130137530).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches a hollow golf club shaft (40), consisting of: a plurality of carbon fiber-reinforced resin layers (Fig. 7, Part No. 32) (Para. 0033, 0040); and one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Fig. 7, Part No. 36, 38) (Para. 0041, 0043), each reinforcing layer spanning a circumference of the golf club shaft (See fig. 7), wherein the woven metal mesh comprises stainless steel, nickel, titanium, copper, aluminum, magnesium, or an alloy thereof (Para. 0042-0043), the woven metal mesh inherently having a density of wires per inch (though a specific value is not disclosed).
It is noted that the prior art of Meyer (Para. 0043) discloses: “suitable isotropic materials for outer layer 38 are metals, preferably the same metal used to form intermediate member 36”.
Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh
It is noted that applicant’s specification (Para. 0058) discloses: “the mesh can be modified from as low as 20 mesh to up to 500 mesh. A person having skill in the art would modify the mesh to achieve a preferred density for the arrow, golf club, rifle barrel, etc. A person having skill in the art can adjust the mesh from one end of the shaft to the other to tune the shaft. Modifying the number of wires per inch as well as varying the wire diameters in the warp and weft directions can achieve preferable results, such as faster arrow recovery, deeper penetration greater stored kinetic energy, increased structural durability, as well as changing the front of center balance of the arrow.”
Cheng (Figures 1-10) teaches the woven metal mesh
It is noted that the prior art of Cheng teaches ranges for the woven metal mesh density and diameter of each metal fiber. 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 (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). If there is any doubt with the teaching of Cheng, the prior art of ITO is also being used to teach the claimed wire diameter.
ITO (Para. 0044) teaches wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches (Para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meyer with wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) (See Cheng: Col. 4, Lines 20-37), and (alternatively) to provide Meyer with wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches as taught by ITO as a means of providing a golf club shaft with metallic fiber having a diameter of 10 to 500 micro meters (ITO: Para. 0044).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the reinforcing layer(s) are located in the butt section of the golf club shaft, the mid section of the golf club shaft, or the tip section of the golf club shaft (See fig. 1-2 and 7) (Para. 0037, 0044).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the reinforcing layer(s) (32) (Para. 0035, 0044) extend along the full length of the golf shaft.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the woven metal mesh is positioned at different angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of shaft (Para. 0041).
The modified Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh is positioned on the golf club shaft at a zero- and ninety-degree wire orientation, where the zero-degree wires are in line with a longitudinal axis of the golf shaft, and the ninety-degree wires are oriented perpendicular thereto.
It is noted that the prior art of Meyer (Para. 0041) discloses: “an alternative embodiment of the present invention, as illustrated in FIG. 7, an intermediate member 36 and an outer layer 38 in combination may replace cover layer 30 of FIG. 5. Intermediate member 36 juxtaposes both core layer 32 and outer layer 38, and preferably is a porous grid, web, mesh, cloth, woven member, braided member, wound member, coil member, continuous member, discontinuous member, or lattice network member formed of an isotropic material, preferably metallic fibers, filaments, wires, strips, or ribbons. Intermediate member 36 may further comprise any of the reinforcement material described above. Any of these filaments and/or fibers may be arranged at different angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of shaft 12.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meyer with the woven metal mesh is positioned on the golf club shaft at a zero- and ninety-degree wire orientation as a means of mere rearrangement of part (i.e. positioning the mesh at different angles as taught by Meyer) (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950))(See Meyer: Para. 0041)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the woven metal mesh is impregnated with a resin (Para. 0053).
Regarding claim 11, Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches a method of manufacturing a reinforced shaft for a golf club, comprising: wrapping a plurality of layers (32, 34) (Para. 0048-0049) around a mandrel (50) (Para. 0046); curing the layers to form the golf club shaft and removing the mandrel from the golf club shaft (Para. 0047, 0050, 0054), wherein the plurality of layers consist of a plurality of carbon-reinforced resin layers (Fig. 10, Part No. 32, 34) (Para. 0033, 0040); and one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Fig. 10, Part No. 36) (Para. 0041), each reinforcing layer spanning a circumference of the golf club shaft (See fig. 10), wherein the woven metal mesh comprises stainless steel, nickel, titanium, copper, aluminum, magnesium, or an alloy thereof (Para. 0042).
Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh is 150 mesh to 500 mesh, and comprises wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches.
Cheng (Figures 1-10) teaches the woven metal mesh about 0.002 inch to about 0.008 inch (Col. 4, Lines 20-37).
It is noted that the prior art of Cheng teaches variable ranges for the woven metal mesh density and diameter of each metal fiber. Cheng (Col. 4, Lines 53-67) discloses: “the weight of metal fiber layer 32 may also be varied by varying the density of the fibers 32a within the layer and/or the diameter of the fibers. Similar adjustments may be made with respect to metal fiber layers 34 and 36”. 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 (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). If there is any doubt with the teaching of Cheng, the prior art of ITO is also being used to teach the claimed wire diameter.
ITO (Para. 0044) teaches wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches (Para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meyer with the woven metal mesh comprises wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) (See Cheng: Col. 4, Lines 20-37), and (alternatively) to provide Meyer with wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches as taught by ITO as a means of providing a golf club shaft with metallic fiber having a diameter of 10 to 500 micro meters (ITO: Para. 0044)..
Regarding claim 12, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the reinforcing layer(s) are located in the butt section of the golf club shaft, the mid section of the golf club shaft, or the tip section of the golf club shaft (See fig. 1-2 and 7) (Para. 0037, 0044).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the reinforcing layer(s) (32) (Para. 0035, 0044) extend along the full length of the golf shaft.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the woven metal mesh is positioned at different angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of shaft (Para. 0041).
The modified Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh is positioned on the golf club shaft at a zero- and ninety-degree wire orientation, where the zero-degree wires are in line with a longitudinal axis of the golf shaft, and the ninety-degree wires are oriented perpendicular thereto.
It is noted that the prior art of Meyer (Para. 0041) discloses: “an alternative embodiment of the present invention, as illustrated in FIG. 7, an intermediate member 36 and an outer layer 38 in combination may replace cover layer 30 of FIG. 5. Intermediate member 36 juxtaposes both core layer 32 and outer layer 38, and preferably is a porous grid, web, mesh, cloth, woven member, braided member, wound member, coil member, continuous member, discontinuous member, or lattice network member formed of an isotropic material, preferably metallic fibers, filaments, wires, strips, or ribbons. Intermediate member 36 may further comprise any of the reinforcement material described above. Any of these filaments and/or fibers may be arranged at different angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of shaft 12.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meyer with the woven metal mesh is positioned on the golf club shaft at a zero- and ninety-degree wire orientation as a means of mere rearrangement of part (i.e. positioning the mesh at different angles as taught by Meyer) (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950))(See Meyer: Para. 0041).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the woven metal mesh is impregnated with a resin (Para. 0053).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches at least one of the woven metal mesh reinforcing layers comprises two continuous wraps (Fig. 7, Part 36, 38) (Para. 0041, 0043).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches at least one of the woven metal mesh reinforcing layers comprises two continuous wraps (Fig. 7, Part 36, 38) (Para. 0041, 0043).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Cheng and ITO, further in view of Fujioka (20150266260).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Para. 0041).
The modified Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh has a plain weave, Dutch weave, twilled weave, twilled Dutch weave, reverse Dutch weave, or five heddle weave.
Fujioka teaches the woven metal mesh has a plain weave (Para. 0134, 0101), Dutch weave, twilled weave, twilled Dutch weave, reverse Dutch weave, or five heddle weave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meyer with the woven metal mesh has a plain weave as taught by Fujioka as a means of providing a golf club shaft with metal mesh sheets having a plain weave (Fujioka: Para. 0134, 0101).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Para. 0041).
The modified Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh has a plain weave, Dutch weave, twilled weave, twilled Dutch weave, reverse Dutch weave, or five heddle weave.
Fujioka teaches the woven metal mesh has a plain weave (Para. 0134, 0101), Dutch weave, twilled weave, twilled Dutch weave, reverse Dutch weave, or five heddle weave.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meyer with the woven metal mesh has a plain weave as taught by Fujioka as a means of providing a golf club shaft with metal mesh sheets having a plain weave (Fujioka: Para. 0134, 0101).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Cheng and ITO, further in view of Scanlon (20070207186).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Para. 0041).
The modified Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh is annealed.
Scanlon teaches the woven metal mesh (68) (Para. 0271, 0174) is annealed (Para. 0174 0075, 0082, 0289).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meyer with the woven metal mesh is annealed as taught by Scanlon as a means of proving a shaft of a sports implement with a material that is annealed or stress relieved after stretching to significantly reduce or eliminate voids (Scanlon: Para. 0174, 0289).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Para. 0041).
The modified Meyer does not teach the woven metal mesh is annealed.
Scanlon teaches the woven metal mesh (68) (Para. 0271, 0174) is annealed (Para. 0174 0075, 0082, 0289).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meyer with the woven metal mesh is annealed as taught by Scanlon as a means of proving a shaft of a sports implement with a material that is annealed or stress relieved after stretching to significantly reduce or eliminate voids (Scanlon: Para. 0174, 0289).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Meyer does not teach the recitation in the preamble of claim 1 of “consisting of”, this is not found persuasive because Meyer teaches a hollow golf club shaft (40), consisting of: a plurality of carbon fiber-reinforced resin layers (Fig. 7, Part No. 32) (Para. 0033, 0040); and one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Fig. 7, Part No. 36, 38) (Para. 0041, 0043). It is noted that the prior art of Meyer discloses: “suitable isotropic materials for outer layer 38 are metals, preferably the same metal used to form intermediate member 36”. Its is noted that Meyer (Fig. 7) teaches the “consisting of” in the preamble of claim 1.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Cheng does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers”, this is not found persuasive because claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Meyer in view of Cheng. Meyer teaches one or more woven metal mesh reinforcing layers (Fig. 7, Part No. 36, 38) (Meyer: Para. 0041).
Applicant argues that recitation in claim 11 of “the woven metal mesh… comprises wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches” is critical because the claimed dimension of wire could be used to reinforce composite golf club shafts and achieve sufficient stiffness or strength as compared to heavier/steel shafts, this is not found persuasive because applicant’s specification (Para. 0077) discloses: “in some embodiments, the mesh comprises wire having a diameter less than or equal to about 0.001 inches” so that the claimed dimension is not exact (based on the specification disclosing “about 0.001 inches”). It is noted that the prior art of Cheng teaches variable ranges for the woven metal mesh density and diameter of each metal fiber. Cheng (Col. 4, Lines 53-67) discloses: “the weight of metal fiber layer 32 may also be varied by varying the density of the fibers 32a within the layer and/or the diameter of the fibers. Similar adjustments may be made with respect to metal fiber layers 34 and 36”. 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 (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meyer with the woven metal mesh comprises wire having a diameter less than or equal to 0.001 inches as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) (See Cheng: Col. 4, Lines 20-37). If there is any doubt with the teaching of Cheng, the prior art of ITO is also being used to teach the claimed wire diameter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711