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 .
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, 2, 4, 6-10, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Govan (USPN 1133129) in view of Thail (USPN 9486676) and
Gordos (USPN 4065133) in further view of Chen (CN 20269992).
Regarding claim 1, Govan discloses a club head having an internal chamber 2 including an internal weight 3 movable within the internal chamber to adjust the balance of the club head. The weights are disc-shaped and the internal chamber is cylindrical (See Figures 1-6). Govan does not disclose a plurality of dimples or a channel in the crown having dimples. Thail discloses a club head having a plurality of dimples (See Figure 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have dimples, as taught by Mori, in order to increase the stability and speed at impact. Gordos discloses a club head having channels along the body, including the crown, to reduce frictional drag. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have channels in the crown, as taught by Gordos, in order to reduce frictional drag and improve control. Govan in view of Thail and Gordos do not disclose the channel on the surface of the club head with dimples. Chen discloses a club head having a channel on the surface of the club head wherein the channel includes dimples (See Abstract). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a channel with dimples therein, as taught by Chen, in order to improve club head stability.
Regarding claim 2, Thail discloses the dimples being spherical.
Regarding claim 4, Thail discloses one or more dimples being located on the striking face wherein it does not influence the strike of a golf ball (See Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Thail discloses dimples having first and second dimples
wherein the first dimples is uniform in size and shape and the second dimples are
different from the first dimples while being uniform in size and shape.
Regarding claim 7, Thail discloses the dimples arranged in rows parallel to an edge of the club head.
Regarding claim 8, Thail discloses at least 50% of the surface of the head being covered.
Regarding claim 9, Govan discloses the weights being adjustable in a position
from an outside of the club head.
Regarding claim 10, Govan discloses the chamber being perpendicular to the strike face. The chamber is also uniform in cross-section.
Regarding claim 15, Govan discloses the chamber being centrally located in the club head (See Figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Gordos discloses the channel being a plurality of channels (See Figures 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the
prior art applied to claim 1 above in view of Boyd et al. (US 2012/0322573).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art applied to claim 1 above does not disclose the
depth and diameter of the dimples. Boyd et al. discloses a club head having dimples
thereon wherein the dimple diameter is 0.5 to 3.0mm and the dimple depth is 0.05 to
0.8mm (See Paragraph 0041). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to have the dimples of the above diameter, as taught by Boyd et al., in order to
improve the aerodynamics of the club head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, 16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not meet the requirements of the claim and is merely a reconstruction. The examiner disagrees. According to the applicant, Gordos improves airflow whereas Chen turbulates the airflow which are two different acts. This is not the case. Gordos notes that improved stability is a goal being achieve by the invention as evident by Gordos’ Summary of the Invention. Chen notes that it aims to stabilize the club head also. Applicant argues that they are fundamentally different and that Chen destroys what Gordos aims to achieve; however, they both aim to solve the same problem. A reference only need to suggest why one having ordinary skill in the art would have combine the feature. Dimples being added to Gordos does not require more rationale since Thail et al. and Chen both promote stability. It should further be noted that Thail et al. also notes that improved stability by reducing pressure drag is achieved using dimples as evident by Thail et al.’s Summary of the Invention. For this reason, the rejection is proper.
Applicant also argues that Govan does not teach a club head with an internal chamber. It is asserted by the applicant that the disk weights are not moveable within the aperture, or internal chamber. The examiner disagrees due to the discs moveable via threading and being positionable based on desired weighting. There is no requirement that the internal chamber cannot be filled. Govan is infact analogous to the rejection.
Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 15, and 20 are also analogous based on examiner’s position on Gordos and Chen.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALVIN A HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4411. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ALVIN A HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights