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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10610747 in view of claim 15 of Matsunaga (8371955).
Regarding claim 21, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 1) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except the recitation of a distance from the ground plane to a peak crown height as measured along the z-axis when the golf club head is in a normal address position ranges from 32 mm to 44 mm. (It is noted that claim 21 of the instant application recites “a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm”. James (USPN 10610747; Claim 1) recites “a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the leading edge no more than 10 mm” so that James teaches the recitation of “no more than 12.5 mm” as claimed). Matsunaga (USPN 8371955; Claim 15) teaches a distance from the ground plane to a peak crown height as measured along the z-axis when the golf club head is in a normal address position ranges from 32 mm to 44 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide James (USPN 10610747; Claim 1) with a distance from the ground plane to a peak crown height as measured along the z-axis when the golf club head is in a normal address position ranges from 32 mm to 44 mm as taught by Matsunaga as a means of providing a golf club head with a crown highest point that is not less than 25 mm but not more than 70 mm (Matsunaga: USPN 8371955; Claim 15).
Regarding claim 22, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 2) teaches a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the leading edge no more than 10 mm.
Regarding claim 23, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 2) teaches a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the leading edge between 3-7 mm.
Regarding claim 24, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 1) teaches a weight port formed in the golf club head and a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port.
Regarding claim 25, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 3) teaches the weight port is formed in the weight pad.
Regarding claim 26, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 5) teaches an average thickness of the face above the center face is greater than an average thickness of the face below the center face.
Regarding claim 27, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 6) teaches the thickness of the face includes a variable face thickness feature (VFT feature), the VFT feature being a symmetrical pattern.
Regarding claim 28, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 7) teaches the thickness of the face includes a variable face thickness feature (VFT feature), the VFT feature being asymmetrical.
Regarding claim 29, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 13) teaches a minimum distance from a ground plane to an underside surface of the overhang portion is no more than 10 mm.
Regarding claim 30, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 14) teaches a minimum thickness of the overhang portion is no more than 10 mm.
Regarding claim 31, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 15) teaches a thickness of the overhang portion ranges between 2-10 mm.
Regarding claim 32, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 16) teaches the face including a variable face thickness feature (VFT feature) having a center point (CP), the face including a geometric center face (CF), the VFT feature CP being a distance D of at least 3 mm from the CF.
Regarding claim 33, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 18) teaches an adjustable head- shaft connection assembly that is operable to adjust at least one of a loft angle, a lie angle, and a face angle of a golf club formed when the golf club head is attached to a golf club shaft via the adjustable head-shaft connection assembly.
Regarding claim 34, James (USPN 10610747; Claim 4) teaches the crown end face thickness of ranges between 1.5 mm and 4 mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitations in claim 21 of “a distance from the ground plane to a peak crown height as measured along the z-axis when the golf club head is in a normal address position ranges from 32 mm to 44 mm” is directed to new matter because the recited limitation is not supported by applicant’s originally field disclosure (claims, specification, drawings filed 08/01/2022). Applicant’s originally filed specification discloses: “referring back to FIG. 1B, a crown height 162 is shown and measured as the height from the GP to the highest point of the crown 120 as measured parallel to the z-axis 206. In the current embodiment, the crown height 162 is about 36 mm. In various embodiments, the crown height 162 may be 34-40 mm. In various embodiments, the crown height may be 32-44 mm. In various embodiments, the crown height may be 30-50 mm”. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure states the highest point (peak) of the crown is measure from a ground plane (gp), but does not disclose the measurement is made “when in a normal address position”. Therefore, the claims are rejected as directed to new matter.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Applicant’s originally filed specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the recitations in claims 21 and 35 of “an x-axis is tangential to the face at a center face and is parallel to a ground plane when the golf club head is in a normal address position when the golf club head is in a normal address position”. No new matter should be entered.
Applicant’s originally filed specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the recitations in claims 26 and 47 of “an average thickness of the face above the center face is greater than an average thickness of the face below the center face”. No new matter should be entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recitation in claims 21 and 35 of “an x-axis”, “a y-axis” and “a z-axis” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The axes shown in figure 1b should by labeled x, y and z. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 35-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (20100292028) in view of Rice (20120202617), Funayama (20080113825), Su (5776011), and Willett (20090264218).
Regarding claim 35, Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches golf club head comprising: a golf club head body defined by a top portion, a bottom portion, a toe portion, a heel portion, and a face (See fig. 1-4), the golf club head body defining an interior cavity (Para. 0031, 0033); the face including a toe end, a heel end, a top end, and a bottom end (See fig. 1-4), the face defining a thickness from an outer surface of the face to an inner surface of the face, wherein the thickness of the face is variable (Para. 0060); the face including a geometric center that defines an origin of a coordinate system in which an x-axis is tangential to the face at a center face and is parallel to a ground plane when the golf club head is in a normal address position, a y-axis extending perpendicular to the x-axis and parallel to the ground plane, and a z-axis extending perpendicular to the ground plane, wherein a positive x-axis extends toward the toe end from the origin, a positive y-axis extends rearwardly from the origin, and a positive z-axis extends upwardly from the origin (See fig. 1-4); the top portion of the golf club head body coupled to the top end of the face (See fig. 1-4), the bottom portion golf club head body coupled to the bottom end of the face (See fig. 1-4), the toe portion of the golf club head body coupled to the toe end of the face (See fig. 1-4), and the heel portion of the golf club head body coupled to the heel end of the face (See fig. 1-4); the golf club head body defining a trailing edge being a rearward most edge of the golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0035) and the golf club head body defining a leading edge being a forwardmost edge of the golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0035); wherein: the top end of the face having a top end face thickness defined as a thickness of the face from an outer surface of the face to an inner surface of the face proximate the top end; the bottom end of the face having a bottom end face thickness defined as a thickness of the face from an outer surface of the face to an inner surface of the face proximate the bottom end (See fig. 1-2) (Para. 0031, 0033); the club head having a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge (Para. 0063); a loft of the golf club head is variable (Para. 0061); the face including a geometric center face (CF) and the face having a variable face thickness (Para. 0060), wherein the face thickness varies from the heel end to the toe end of the face (Para. 0060), and the face thickness varies from the top end to the bottom end of the face (Para. 0060).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the face including a geometric center that defines an origin of a coordinate system in which an x-axis is tangential to the face at a center face and is parallel to a ground plane when the golf club head is in a normal address position, a y-axis extending perpendicular to the x-axis and parallel to the ground plane, and a z-axis extending perpendicular to the ground plane, wherein a positive x-axis extends toward the toe end from the origin, a positive y-axis extends rearwardly from the origin, and a positive z-axis extends upwardly from the origin” is directed to an imaginary reference system and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Boyd.
Boyd does not teach a weight pad located within the interior cavity and coupled to the bottom portion of the golf club head body and positioned proximate the face in a forward portion of the bottom portion; a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge is at most 97 mm, a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm, a loft of the golf club head is at least 14.5 degrees, in a y-z plane passing through the face, the face has a first thickness proximate a top end of the face, below the top end of the face the face has a thin face region having a second thickness, and below the thin face region the face has a third region having a third thickness; and the second thickness is less than both the first thickness and the third thickness.
Rice (Figure 22) teaches a weight pad (Fig. 22, Part No. 192) (Para. 0062) located within the interior cavity and coupled to the bottom portion of the golf club head body and positioned proximate the face in a forward portion of the bottom portion (Para. 0062); a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the face (see fig. 22) (though a specific distance values is not disclosed).
The claim recitation of “the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm” is directed to the distance the weight pad is offset from the face. Rice teaches the weight pad is offset from the face (see fig. 22) (though a specific distance values 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)). Changing the distance of the weight pad from the face would have been obvious 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)).
Funayama (Figures 9-10) teaches a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge is at most 97 mm (Para. 0078).
Su teaches a loft of the golf club head is at least 14.5 degrees (Col. 3, Lines 57-62).
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches in a y-z plane passing through the face, the face has a first thickness (See fig. 2B-2C) proximate a top end of the face, below the top end of the face the face has a thin face region (Fig. 2B-2C, Part No. 48) having a second thickness, and below the thin face region the face has a third region having a third thickness (See fig. 2B-2C); and the second thickness is less than both the first thickness and the third thickness (See fig. 2B-2C) (Para. 0037, 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boyd with a weight pad located within the interior cavity as taught by Rice as a means of providing a sole of a golf club head with thin weights to permit a golfer to adjust overall weighting of the golf club head (Rice: Para. 0062), to provide Boyd with a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge is at most 97 mm as taught by Funayama as a means of providing a golf club head having a dimension from front to back that is fixed at 96 mm (Funayama: Para 0078; Fig. 9-10), to provide Boyd with a loft of the golf club head is at least 14.5 degrees as taught by Su as a means of providing a golf club head with a 15 degree loft (Su: Col. 3, Lines 57-62), and to provide Boyd with the second thickness is less than both the first thickness and the third thickness as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the thin face region is offset from the CF.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the thin face region (Fig. 2A-2C, Part No. 48) is offset from the CF (Fig. 2A and 2C, Part No. 42) (Para. 0037, 0049).
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 Boyd with the thin face region is offset from the CF as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the thin face region has a geometric center (TFRCP) and the TFRCP is offset a distance of at least 3 mm from the CF.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the thin face region (Fig. 2A- 2C, Part No. 48) has a geometric center (TFRCP) and the TFRCP is offset from the CF (Fig. 2A and 2C, Part No. 42) (Para. 0037, 0049).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the TFRCP is offset a distance of at least 3 mm from the CF” is directed to the distance of a center of the second thickness relative to a center face of the golf club face plate. 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)). Changing the distance TFRCP is offset from the CF would have been obvious 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 the modified Boyd with the TFRCP is offset from the CF as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 38, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the thin face region is radially symmetric.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the thin face region (Fig. 2A-2C, Part No. 48) is radially symmetric (Para. 0037, 0049).
It is noted that the thin face region of Willet can be a small portion in a center of part number 48 so that the small portion is “radially symmetric” as claimed. Alternatively, the claim recitation of “the thin face region is radially symmetric” is directed to the shape of the thin face region (i.e. the second thickness). Changing the chape of the thin face region would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
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 Boyd with a thin face region as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the first thickness ranges between 1.5 mm and 4 mm.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the first thickness ranges between 1.5 mm and 4 mm (See fig. 2B) (Para. 0051).
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 Boyd with the first thickness ranges between 1.5 mm and 4 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049) , and also 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)).
Regarding claim 40, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the second thickness ranges between 1.0 mm and 4 mm.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the second thickness ranges between 1.0 mm and 4 mm (See fig. 2B) (Para. 0051).
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 Boyd with the second thickness ranges between 1.0 mm and 4 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also 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)).
Regarding claim 41, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the first thickness is no more than 3.0 mm.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the first thickness is no more than 3.0 mm (See fig. 2B) (Para. 0051).
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 Boyd with the first thickness is no more than 3.0 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also 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)).
Regarding claim 42, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches the y-z plane passes through the origin (See fig. 1-4).
It is noted that the limitations of claim 42 are directed to an imaginary plane and an imaginary coordinate system relative to the golf club head face plate.
Regarding claim 43, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the second thickness is less than a center face thickness measured at the CF.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the second thickness is less than a center face thickness (Fig. 2B, Part No. T1) measured at the CF (Para. 0051).
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 Boyd with the second thickness is less than a center face thickness as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also 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)).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach at least a portion of the face located below the thin face region has a thickness no less than 1.0 mm and no more than 2.5 mm.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches at least a portion of the face located below the thin face region has a thickness no less than 1.0 mm and no more than 2.5 mm (Para. 0051).
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 Boyd with at least a portion of the face located below the thin face region has a thickness no less than 1.0 mm and no more than 2.5 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also 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)).
Regarding claim 45, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach a weight port formed in the golf club head and a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port.
Rice (Figure 22) teaches a weight port formed in the golf club head and a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port (Para. 0062).
It is noted that Rice (Para. 0062) discloses: “thin weights 190, 192 are disposed within these recesses 163, 165, secured with screws (not shown), and concealed with covers 194, 196 that preferably are formed from the same material as the body patches 180, 18”. The claimed “weight port” is shown as a hole through plate 190, 192 and the claimed “weight” is the screws disclosed by the prior art of Rice.
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 Boyd with a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port as taught by Rice as a means of providing a sole of a golf club head with thin weights secured by screws to permit a golfer to adjust overall weighting of the golf club head (Rice: Para. 0062).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the weight port is formed in the weight pad.
Rice (Figure 22) teaches the weight port is formed in the weight pad (Para. 0062).
It is noted that Rice (Para. 0062) discloses: “thin weights 190, 192 are disposed within these recesses 163, 165, secured with screws (not shown), and concealed with covers 194, 196 that preferably are formed from the same material as the body patches 180, 18”. The claimed “weight port” is shown as a hole through the “weight pad” shown by part number 190, 192 in figure 22 of the prior art of Rice.
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 Boyd with the weight port is formed in the weight pad as taught by Rice as a means of providing a sole of a golf club head with thin weights secured by screws to permit a golfer to adjust overall weighting of the golf club head (Rice: Para. 0062).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Rice, Funayama, Su, and Willett, further in view of Dickinson (20050009626).
Regarding claim 47, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches golf club head comprising: a golf club head body defined a face (See fig. 1-4); the face defining a thickness from an outer surface of the face to an inner surface of the face, wherein the thickness of the face is variable (Para. 0060)
The modified Boyd does not teach an average thickness of the face above the center face is greater than an average thickness of the face below the center face.
Dickinson (Figure 13) teaches an average thickness of the face (Fig. 13, Part No. 38) (Para. 0028) above the center face is greater than an average thickness of the face below the center face.
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 Boyd with an average thickness of the face above the center face is greater than an average thickness of the face below the center face as taught by Dickinson as mean of providing a golf ball club head with spin-controlling impact faceplates (Dickinson: Para. 0028).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Rice, Funayama, Su, and Willett, further in view of De La Cruz (20090247316).
Regarding claim 48, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach an adjustable head-shaft connection assembly that is operable to adjust at least one of a loft angle, a lie angle, and a face angle of a golf club formed when the golf club head is attached to a golf club shaft via the adjustable head-shaft connection assembly.
De La Cruz (Figures 15A-15D) teaches an adjustable head-shaft connection assembly that is operable to adjust at least one of a loft angle (Para. 0076), a lie angle (Para. 0076), and a face angle of a golf club formed when the golf club head is attached to a golf club shaft via the adjustable head-shaft connection assembly.
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 Boyd with an adjustable head-shaft connection assembly that is operable to adjust a loft angle as taught by De La Cruz as a means of providing a golf club with a mechanism to change the loft and/or lie angle of the golf club (De La Cruz: Para. 0076).
Conclusion
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