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 05/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13-18, and 20-21 are pending in the application.
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 1-3, 8, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (20040092329) in view of Perryman (6354960), Kratzer (20190375185), Iwata (20170274603), and Cecka (4157181).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches a golf club shaft (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 12), comprising: a butt end (See fig. 1-2); a tip end (See fig. 1-2), wherein the golf club shaft is tapered between the butt end and the tip end (Para. 0029); a coil of fiber (Fig. 7, Part No. 36) (Para. 0041) wound helically relative to an axis of the golf club shaft (Para. 0041); and one or more layers of composite material (Fig. 7, Part No. 38) (Para. 0043) wrapped around the coils of fiber (36) and disposed radially outwardly of the coils of fiber (36) (See fig. 7).
Meyer does not teach coils of a metal fiber, wherein adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other, and wherein the metal fiber has a circular cross section, the circle having a diameter of less than 15 microns, the coils of metal fiber including at least 5,000 coils, and the metal fiber including a coating of a resin; the coils of metal fiber include: a first section of coils of metal fiber; and a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the golf club shaft from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction, the third section not including coils of metal fiber.
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches coils of metal fiber (Fig. 9, Part No. 24, 26) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57); the coils of metal fiber include: a first section of coils of metal fiber; and a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the golf club shaft from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction, the third section not including coils of metal fiber (See fig. 9-10) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57).
Kratzer teaches adjacent ones of the coils (Fig. 1, Part No. 12, 14) directly contact each other (Para. 0034), and the fiber has a circular cross-section (Para. 0035, 0005).
It is noted that the prior art of Kratzer teaches fibers that inherently have a diameter (though a specific value is not disclosed). 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 the combination of Meyer and Kratzer with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns 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)). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Iwata is being used to teach “a diameter of less than 15 microns”.
Iwata (Figures 1-26) teaches the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns (Para. 0117).
Cecka (Figures 1-13) teaches coils of fiber (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 12, 13) wound adjacent to each other helically relative to an axis of the golf club shaft (Col. 6, Lines 51-61), and the fiber is coated with a resin (Col. 4, Lines 52-68; Col. 5, Lines 1-23).
It is noted that the combination of Meyer and Cecka teaches a plurality of coils of fibers (See Cecka: Col. 6, Lines 51-61; Fig. 2-3). 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 the modified Meyer with the golf club shaft includes at least five thousand of the coils of fiber 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)).
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 coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of selecting a known material (metallic fibers) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of the shaft of a sports implement) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)), to provide the modified Meyer with adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other as taught by Kratzer as a means of forming a golf club tubular structure from coils in contact with each other so that uniformity of composite strength and consistency of resistance to hoop stress along the tubular article is achieved (Para. 0034, 0069), to provide Meyer with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns as taught by Iwata 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)), to provide Meyer with coils of fiber wound helically as taught by Cecka as a means of providing a tapered golf shaft with desired longitudinal deflection characteristics by placement of the fibers with continuously varying helical wrapping angles along the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Cecka: Col. 1, Lines 56-66).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches a second one or more layers of composite material (Fig. 7, Part No. 32) (Para. 0033), wherein the coil of fiber (36) (Para. 0041) is wound helically around the second one or more layers of composite material (32), and the second one or more layers of composite material (32) are disposed radially inwardly of the coils of fiber (36) (See fig. 7).
The modified Meyer does not teach coils of metal fiber.
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches coils of metal fiber (Fig. 9, Part No. 24, 26) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57).
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 coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of selecting a known material (metallic fibers) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of the shaft of a sports implement) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches at least one layer of composite material (38).
The modified Meyer does not teach at least one of the one or more layers of composite material include graphite, an epoxy, and a resin.
Cecka teaches at least one of the one or more layers of composite material include graphite, an epoxy, and a resin (Col. 4, Lines 52-68; Col. 5, Lines 1-23).
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 at least one layer of composite material includes graphite, an epoxy, and a resin as taught Cecka as a means of providing a golf club shaft with a resin-bonded graphite fiber structure to achieve a unique combination of properties (Cecka: Abstract, Lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches coils of fiber (Fig. 7, Part No. 36) (Para. 0041) wound helically relative to an axis of the golf club shaft (Para. 0041).
Meyer does not teach each of the coils is disposed at an angle of between 1 degree and 89 degrees relative to the axis.
Cecka (Figures 1-13) teaches the coils (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 12, 13) s disposed at an angle of between 1 degree and 89 degrees relative to the axis (Col. 6, Lines 51-61).
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 each of the coils is disposed at an angle of between 1 degree and 89 degrees relative to the axis as taught by Cecka as a means of providing a tapered golf shaft with desired longitudinal deflection characteristics by placement of the fibers with continuously varying helical wrapping angles along the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Cecka: Col. 1, Lines 56-66).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the fiber is selected from a group consisting of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten, and an alloy of one of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten (Para. 0041).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the golf club shaft is hollow inside of the coil of fiber (36) (Para. 0041).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Perryman, Kratzer, Iwata, and Cecka, further in view of Jackson (20020119830).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches the golf club shaft includes a coil of fiber (36) (Para. 0041) wound helically relative to the axis of the golf club shaft.
The modified Meyer does not teach each of the coils is disposed approximately perpendicular to the axis.
Jackson teaches fibers disposed approximately perpendicular to the axis (Para. 0003, 0017).
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 fibers disposed approximately perpendicular to the axis as taught by Jackson as a means of changing the position of fibers of a golf club relative to a longitudinal axis of the golf club (Jackson: Para. 0003), and also as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches coils of fiber (Fig. 7, Part No. 36) (Para. 0041) wound helically relative to an axis of the golf club shaft (Para. 0041).
Meyer does not teach each of the coils is disposed approximately parallel to the axis.
Jackson teaches fibers disposed approximately parallel to the axis (Para. 0021, 0017).
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 fibers disposed approximately parallel to the axis as taught by Jackson as a means of changing the position of fibers of a golf club relative to a longitudinal axis of the golf club (Jackson: Para. 0021), and also as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calapp (5865696) in view of Perryman, Kratzer (20190375185), Iwata (20170274603), and Cecka (4157181).
Regarding claim 14, Calapp (Figures 1-7) teaches a tubular portion of one of a sports stick shaft (Col. 4, Lines 36-42), the tubular portion comprising: one or more layers of composite material (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21) (Col. 4, Lines 37-59); and coils of a metal fiber (26) (Col. 6, Lines 44-49; Col. 5, Lines 13-21), the coils wound adjacent to each other helically relative to an axis of the tubular portion, wherein one of: the one or more layers of composite material (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21) are wrapped around the coils of metal fiber (26) and disposed radially outwardly of the coils of metal fiber; and the coils of metal fiber (26) are wrapped around the one or more layers of composite material and disposed radially outwardly of the one or more layers of composite material (See fig. 2, 6).
It is noted that Calapp (Col. 6, Lines 44-49) discloses “as an alternative, certain carbon/glass hybrids can also be utilized as well as filaments or filament combinations other than glass and carbon including quartz, metallic, aramid and various filament hybrids and combinations” so that Calapp discloses coils of metal fiber as claimed. It is noted that the examiner is relying on the alternative position of the reference which teaches using metallic filaments (See Calapp: Col. 6, Lines 44-49).
Calapp does not teach a tubular portion of a golf club shaft, adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other, and wherein the metal fiber has a circular cross section, the circle having a diameter of less than 15 microns, the coils of metal fiber including at least 5,000 coils, and the metal fiber including a coating of a resin; the coils of metal fiber include: a first section of coils of metal fiber; and a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular portion from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction, the third section not including coils of metal fiber.
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches a tubular portion of a golf club shaft (See fig. 9-10); the coils of metal fiber include: a first section of coils of metal fiber; and a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular portion from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction, the third section not including coils of metal fiber (See fig. 9-10) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57).
Kratzer teaches adjacent ones of the coils (Fig. 1, Part No. 12, 14) directly contact each other (Para. 0034), and the fiber has a circular cross-section (Para. 0035, 0005).
It is noted that the prior art of Kratzer teaches fibers that inherently have a diameter (though a specific value is not disclosed). 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 the combination of Calapp and Kratzer with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns 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)). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Iwata is being used to teach “a diameter of less than 15 microns”.
Iwata (Figures 1-26) teaches the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns (Para. 0117).
Cecka (Figures 1-13) teaches coils of fiber (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 12, 13) wound adjacent to each other helically relative to an axis of the golf club shaft (Col. 6, Lines 51-61), and the fiber is coated with a resin (Col. 4, Lines 52-68; Col. 5, Lines 1-23).
It is noted that the combination of Calapp and Cecka teaches a plurality of coils of fibers (See Cecka: Col. 6, Lines 51-61; Fig. 2-3). 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 the modified Meyer with the golf club shaft includes at least five thousand of the coils of fiber 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Calapp with the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular portion from the first section of coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of providing a sports shaft with coils of fiber at particular portions of the shaft to adjust the weight, flex points, torque, and strength and to provide a unique look (Perryman: Col. 5, Lines 49-57), to provide Calapp with adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other as taught by Kratzer as a means of forming a golf club tubular structure from coils in contact with each other so that uniformity of composite strength and consistency of resistance to hoop stress along the tubular article is achieved (Kratzer: Para. 0034, 0069), to provide Calapp with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns as taught by Iwata 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)), and to provide Calapp with coils of fiber wound helically as taught by Cecka as a means of providing a tapered golf shaft with desired longitudinal deflection characteristics by placement of the fibers with continuously varying helical wrapping angles along the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Cecka: Col. 1, Lines 56-66).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Calapp (Figures 1-7) teaches the one or more layers of composite material (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 16, 17, 18, 19) are wrapped around the coils of metal fiber (26) and disposed radially outwardly of the coils of fiber, and wherein the tubular portion further includes a second one or more layers of composite material (21), wherein the coils of metal fiber are wound helically around the second one or more layers of composite material (21), and the second one or more layers of composite material (21) are disposed radially inwardly of the coils of metal fiber (26) (See fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Calapp (Figures 1-7) teaches the coils of metal fiber (26) are wrapped around the one or more layers of composite material (21) and disposed radially outwardly of the one or more layers of composite material (See fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Calapp (Figures 1-7) teaches a method of forming a tubular portion of a sports shaft, the method comprising: winding coils of metal fiber (26) ((Col. 6, Lines 44-49); Col. 5, Lines 13-21) adjacent to each other helically around a tubular member; and wrapping one or more layers of composite material (16, 17, 18, 19) around the coils of metal fiber (26) such that the one or more layers of composite material are disposed radially outwardly of the coils of metal fiber (See fig. 2).
It is noted that Calapp (Col. 6, Lines 44-49) discloses “as an alternative, certain carbon/glass hybrids can also be utilized as well as filaments or filament combinations other than glass and carbon including quartz, metallic, aramid and various filament hybrids and combinations” so that Calapp discloses coils of metal fiber as claimed. It is noted that the examiner is relying on the alternative position of the reference which teaches using metallic filaments (See Calapp: Col. 6, Lines 44-49).
Calapp does not teach a tubular golf shaft; wherein adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other, and wherein the metal fiber has a circular cross section, the circle having a diameter of less than 15 microns, the coils of metal fiber including at least 5,000 coils, and the metal fiber including a coating of a resin; wherein the winding includes: winding a first section of coils of metal fiber; winding a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular golf shaft from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and not winding coils of metal fiber in a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction.
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches a tubular golf shaft (See fig. 9-10); wherein the winding includes: winding a first section of coils of metal fiber; winding a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular golf shaft from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and not winding coils of metal fiber in a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction (See fig. 9-10) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57).
Kratzer teaches adjacent ones of the coils (Fig. 1, Part No. 12, 14) directly contact each other (Para. 0034), and the fiber has a circular cross-section (Para. 0035, 0005).
It is noted that the prior art of Kratzer teaches fibers that inherently have a diameter (though a specific value is not disclosed). 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 the combination of Calapp and Kratzer with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns 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)). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Iwata is being used to teach “a diameter of less than 15 microns”.
Iwata (Figures 1-26) teaches the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns (Para. 0117).
Cecka (Figures 1-13) teaches coils of fiber (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 12, 13) wound adjacent to each other helically relative to an axis of the golf club shaft (Col. 6, Lines 51-61), and the fiber is coated with a resin (Col. 4, Lines 52-68; Col. 5, Lines 1-23).
It is noted that the combination of Calapp and Cecka teaches a plurality of coils of fibers (See Cecka: Col. 6, Lines 51-61; Fig. 2-3). 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 Calapp with the golf club shaft includes at least five thousand of the coils of fiber 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Calapp with the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular golf shaft from the first section of coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of providing a sports shaft with coils of fiber at particular portions of the shaft to adjust the weight, flex points, torque, and strength and to provide a unique look (Perryman: Col. 5, Lines 49-57), to provide Calapp with adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other as taught by Kratzer as a means of forming a golf club tubular structure from coils in contact with each other so that uniformity of composite strength and consistency of resistance to hoop stress along the tubular article is achieved (Kratzer: Para. 0034, 0069), to provide Calapp with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns as taught by Iwata 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)), to provide Calapp with coils of fiber wound helically as taught by Cecka as a means of providing a tapered golf shaft with desired longitudinal deflection characteristics by placement of the fibers with continuously varying helical wrapping angles along the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Cecka: Col. 1, Lines 56-66).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calapp in view of Perryman, Kratzer, Iwata, and Cecka, further in view of Filice (5863269).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Calapp (Figures 1-7) teaches one of the one or more layers of composite material (16, 17, 18, 19).
The modified Calapp does not teach at least one of the one or more layers of composite material include graphite, an epoxy, and a resin.
Filice teaches at least one of the one or more layers of composite material include graphite, an epoxy, and a resin (Col. 1, Lines 20-27).
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 Calapp with at least one layer of composite material includes graphite, an epoxy, and a resin as taught Filice as a means of providing a hockey stick with advantages in weight and balance of the hockey stick and in its flexural properties (Filice: Col. 1, Lines 20-27).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calapp in view of Perryman, Kratzer, Iwata, and Cecka, further in view of Kunisaki (6117029).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Calapp (Figures 1-7) teaches coils of metal fiber (26) (Col. 6, Lines 44-49; Col. 5, Lines 13-21) wound helically relative to an axis of the tubular portion.
The modified Calapp does not teach the fiber is selected from a group consisting of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten, and an alloy of one of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten.
Kunisaki (Figures 1-5) teaches the fiber is selected from a group consisting of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten, and an alloy of one of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten (Col. 3, Lines 1-17).
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 Calapp with the fiber is selected from a group consisting of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten, and an alloy of one of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten as taught by Kunisaki as a means of providing fiber layers of a hockey stick shaft with fibers made of tungsten to provide reinforcement to the hockey stick shaft (Kunisaki: Col. Col. 3, Lines 1-17).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kultala (20180117431) in view Perryman, Kratzer, Iwata, and Cecka.
Regarding claim 14, Kultala (Figures 1-5) teaches a tubular portion of a golf shaft (Para. 0063), the tubular portion comprising: one or more layers of composite material (Fig. 4, Part No. 58) (Para. 0030); and fiber (Para. 0031) wound relative to an axis of the tubular portion, wherein one of: the one or more layers of composite material (58) are wrapped around the fiber and disposed radially outwardly of the fiber; and the fiber (58) are wrapped around the one or more layers of composite material and disposed radially outwardly of the one or more layers of composite material (Para. 0030-0031).
Kultala does not teach coils of a metal fiber, the coils wound adjacent to each other helically relative to an axis of the tubular portion, wherein adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other, and wherein the metal fiber has a circular cross section, the circle having a diameter of less than 15 microns, the coils of metal fiber including at least 5,000 coils, and the metal fiber including a coating of a resin; wherein the coils of metal fiber include: a first section of coils of metal fiber; and a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular portion from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction, the third section not including coils of metal fiber.
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches coils of a metal fiber, the coils wound adjacent to each other helically relative to an axis of the tubular portion (See fig. 9-10) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57); the coils of metal fiber include: a first section of coils of metal fiber; and a second section of coils of metal fiber, the second section of coils of metal fiber being separated in an axial direction of the tubular portion from the first section of coils of metal fiber; and a third section disposed between the first and second sections in the axial direction, the third section not including coils of metal fiber (See fig. 9-10) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57).
Kratzer teaches adjacent ones of the coils (Fig. 1, Part No. 12, 14) contact each other (Para. 0034), and the fiber has a circular cross-section (Para. 0035, 0005).
It is noted that the prior art of Kratzer teaches fibers that inherently have a diameter (though a specific value is not disclosed). 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 the combination of Kultala and Kratzer with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns 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)). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Iwata is being used to teach “a diameter of less than 15 microns”.
Iwata (Figures 1-26) teaches the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns (Para. 0117).
Cecka (Figures 1-13) teaches coils of fiber (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 12, 13) wound adjacent to each other helically relative to an axis of the golf club shaft (Col. 6, Lines 51-61), and the fiber is coated with a resin (Col. 4, Lines 52-68; Col. 5, Lines 1-23).
It is noted that the combination of Meyer and Cecka teaches a plurality of coils of fibers (See Cecka: Col. 6, Lines 51-61; Fig. 2-3). 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 the combination of Kultala and Cecka with the golf club shaft includes at least five thousand of the coils of fiber 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kultala with coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of selecting a known material (metallic fibers) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of the shaft of a sports implement) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)), to provide Kultala with adjacent ones of the coils directly contact each other as taught by Kratzer as a means of forming a golf club tubular structure from coils in contact with each other so that uniformity of composite strength and consistency of resistance to hoop stress along the tubular article is achieved (Para. 0034, 0069), to provide Kultala with the fiber has a diameter of less than 15 microns as taught by Iwata 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)), to provide Kultala with coils of fiber wound helically as taught by Cecka as a means of providing a tapered golf shaft with desired longitudinal deflection characteristics by placement of the fibers with continuously varying helical wrapping angles along the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Cecka: Col. 1, Lines 56-66).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Kultala (Figures 1-5) teaches the one or more layers of composite material (58) (Para. 0030) are wrapped around the fiber and disposed radially outwardly of the fiber (58) (Para. 0030), and wherein the tubular portion further includes a second one or more layers of composite material (58) (Para. 0030), wherein the fiber are wound around the second one or more layers of composite material (58) (Para. 0030), and the second one or more layers of composite material are disposed radially inwardly of the fiber (58) (Para. 0030).
The modified Kultala does not teach coils of metal fiber wound helically.
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches coils of metal fiber (Fig. 9, Part No. 24, 26) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57) wound helically.
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 Kultala coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of selecting a known material (metallic fibers) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of the shaft of a sports implement) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kultala (Figures 1-5) teaches the fiber (58) (Para. 0030) are wrapped around the one or more layers of composite material (58) (Para. 0030) and disposed radially outwardly of the one or more layers of composite material (58) (Para. 0030).
The modified Kultala does not teach coils of metal fiber.
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches coils of metal fiber (Fig. 9, Part No. 24, 26) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57).
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 Kultala coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of selecting a known material (metallic fibers) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of the shaft of a sports implement) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kultala in view Perryman, Kratzer, Iwata, and Cecka, further in view of Filice (5863269).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Kultala (Figures 1-5) teaches at least one of the one or more layers of composite (58) (Para. 0030) material include a resin (Para. 0030).
The modified Kultala does not teach at least one of the one or more layers of composite material include graphite, an epoxy, and a resin.
Filice teaches at least one of the one or more layers of composite material include graphite, an epoxy, and a resin (Col. 1, Lines 20-27).
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 Kultala with at least one layer of composite material includes graphite, an epoxy, and a resin as taught Filice as a means of providing a hockey stick with advantages in weight and balance of the hockey stick and in its flexural properties (Filice: Col. 1, Lines 20-27).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kultala in view Perryman, Kratzer, Iwata, and Cecka, further in view of Kunisaki (6117029).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kultala (Figures 1-5) teaches a tubular portion comprising: fiber (Para. 0031) wound relative to an axis of the tubular portion.
The modified Kultala does not teach the metal fiber is selected from a group consisting of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten, and an alloy of one of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten.
Kunisaki (Figures 1-5) teaches the fiber is selected from a group consisting of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten, and an alloy of one of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten (Col. 3, Lines 1-17).
Perryman (Figures 9-10) teaches coils of metal fiber (Fig. 9, Part No. 24, 26) (Col. 5, Lines 49-57).
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 Kultala with the fiber is selected from a group consisting of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten, and an alloy of one of steel, titanium, aluminum, copper, tungsten as taught by Kunisaki as a means of providing fiber layers of a hockey stick shaft with fibers made of tungsten to provide reinforcement to the hockey stick shaft (Kunisaki: Col. Col. 3, Lines 1-17), and to provide the modified Kultala with coils of metal fiber as taught by Perryman as a means of selecting a known material (metallic fibers) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of the shaft of a sports implement) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Perryman, Kratzer, Iwata, and Cecka, further in view of You (20130109486).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Meyer (Figures 1-14) teaches a golf club shaft (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 12), comprising: one or more layers of composite material (Fig. 7, Part No. 38) (Para. 0043) wrapped around the coils of fiber (36).
The modified Meyer does not teach the one or more layers of composite material include an aperture through which a portion of the coils of metal fiber are visible.
You teaches cutting windows into tubular shafts of a golf club to view the inside of the shaft (Para. 0005).
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 cutting a window into a tubular shaft to view the inside of the tubular shaft as taught by You as a means of altering the stiffness and other physical properties of the shaft (You: Para. 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13-18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights