DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 2/18/26. Claim 18 is cancelled; claims 1-17 and 19-20 are amended and pending.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in of the first portion” should be amended to “in . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (US Pat. No. 3,809,403) in view of Meredith (US Pat. No. 5,074,555).
First interpretation of Hunter:
With respect to claim 1, Hunter teaches a stepless metallic golf shaft comprising: a butt portion (station 0-1) having: a proximal end (station 0) configured to be attached to a golf grip; and a distal end (station 1); a tip portion having: a distal end (station 44) configured to be attached to a golf club head 12; and a proximal end; and a midsection connecting the proximal end of the tip portion with the distal end of the butt portion (station 1), the midsection including: a first portion (stations 2-11) having a first outer diameter that gradually decreases in a direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a first taper rate and not having any step changes in the first outer diameter (Fig. 1; “TABLE”); and a second portion (stations 19-30) having a second outer diameter that gradually decreases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a second taper rate and not having any step changes in the second outer diameter, wherein the second taper rate (~ .011 in/linear inch) is different than the first taper rate (~ .0267 in/linear inch)(See TABLE); wherein a wall thickness in the butt portion (.027 inches) is less than the wall thickness in the tip portion (.077 inches).
Hunter teaches wherein the stepless shaft is formed from a single 1-inch metallic alloy tube (column 4, lines 27-29; column 5, lines 57-61), but does not expressly teach wherein its formed of a steel tube of uniform diameter. However, analogous art reference Meredith teaches this feature to be known in the art – column 3, lines 39-43. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a steel alloy for the shaft material, and swaging a hollow tube shaft to form the various parts of the shaft. The rationale to combine is to provide a lightweight, strong, durable shaft.
With respect to claim 5, Hunter wherein the first taper rate (~ .0267 in/linear inch)
is greater than the second taper rate (~ .011 in/linear inch) (See Table).
With respect to claims 7-9, 11, Hunter teaches wherein the midsection further includes a third portion (stations 31-32) having a third outer diameter that gradually decreases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a third taper rate and not having any step changes in the third outer diameter (TABLE); wherein the third taper rate (~.01 in/linear inch) is different than the second taper rate (~.011 in/linear inch) and the first taper rate (~ .0267 in/linear inch); wherein a first length of a first one of the first, second, and third portions is one of greater than and less than a second length of a second one of the first, second, and third portions (TABLE)
With respect to claims 12-13, Hunter teaches wherein the midsection further includes a fourth portion (station 33-35) having a fourth outer diameter that gradually decreases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a fourth taper rate and not having any step changes in the third outer diameter (TABLE), wherein a first length of a first one of the first, second, third, and fourth portions is one of greater than and less than a second length of a second one of the first, second, third, and fourth portions Id.
With respect to claim 14, Hunter teaches wherein an outer diameter of the tip portion is tapered (See TABLE).
With respect to claims 15-16, Hunter teaches wherein the first and second portions are frustoconical (Fig. 1); and wherein an outer diameter of the butt portion is not tapered (Fig. 1; See also TABLE.
With respect to claim 17, Hunter does not expressly teach wherein an outer diameter of the tip portion is not tapered. However, analogous art reference Meredith teaches this feature to be known in the art – Fig.’s 2c, Fig. 3 showing constant outer diameters at a tip portion. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a uniform diameter at a tip portion. This will expectantly ensure the shaft is easily secured to a hosel portion of a golf club head and provide sufficient stiffness at the top portion.
With respect to claims 19-20, Hunter teaches wherein the wall thickness in the first portion increases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion (TABLE) and wherein the wall thickness in the second portion increases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion Id.
Second interpretation of Hunter:
With respect to claim 1, Hunter teaches a stepless metallic golf shaft comprising: a butt portion having: a proximal end (station 0) configured to be attached to a golf grip; and a distal end; a tip portion having: a distal end (station 44) configured to be attached to a golf club head 12; and a proximal end; and a midsection connecting the proximal end of the tip portion with the distal end of the butt portion, the midsection including: a first portion (stations 19-21) having a first outer diameter that gradually decreases in a direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a first taper rate and not having any step changes in the first outer diameter (Fig. 1; “TABLE”); and a second portion (stations 21-23) having a second outer diameter that gradually decreases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a second taper rate and not having any step changes in the second outer diameter, wherein the second taper rate is different than the first taper rate (See TABLE); wherein a wall thickness in the butt portion (.027 inches) is less than the wall thickness in the tip portion (.077 inches).
Hunter teaches wherein the stepless shaft is formed from a single 1-inch metallic alloy tube (column 4, lines 27-29; column 5, lines 57-61), but does not expressly teach wherein its formed of a steel tube of uniform diameter. However, analogous art reference Meredith teaches this feature to be known in the art – column 3, lines 39-43. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a steel alloy for the shaft material, and swaging a hollow tube shaft to form the various parts of the shaft. The rationale to combine is to provide a lightweight, strong, durable shaft.
With respect to claim 2, Hunter teaches wherein a point (i.e. ~ station 21) where the midsection changes from the first taper rate to the second taper rate is half way between the distal end of the butt portion and the proximal end of the tip portion when the distal end of the butt portion is at station 1 and the proximal end of the tip portion is at station 43.
With respect to claim 3, Hunter teaches wherein a point (i.e. ~ station 21) where the midsection changes from the first taper rate to the second taper rate is closer to the butt portion than to the tip portion when the tip portion is construed as beginning at station 43.
With respect to claim 4, Hunter teaches wherein a point (i.e. ~ station 21) where the midsection changes from the first taper rate to the second taper rate is closer to the tip portion than to the butt portion when the tip portion is construed as beginning at station 32.
With respect to claim 6, Hunter teaches wherein the first taper rate is less than the second taper rate (Table 1).
With respect to claims 7-10, Hunter teaches wherein the midsection further includes a third portion (stations 23-25) having a third outer diameter that gradually decreases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a third taper rate ( and not having any step changes in the third outer diameter; wherein the third taper rate is different than the first taper rate and second taper rate (TABLE); wherein lengths of the first, second, and third portions are equal (i.e. each length being 2 stations, or 2 inches).
With respect to claims 12-13, Hunter teaches wherein the midsection further includes a fourth portion (stations 26-27) having a fourth outer diameter that gradually decreases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion at a fourth taper rate and not having any step changes in the third outer diameter, wherein a first length of a first one of the first, second, third, and fourth portions is one of greater than and less than a second length of a second one of the first, second, third, and fourth portions (TABLE).
With respect to claim 14, Hunter teaches wherein an outer diameter of the tip portion is tapered (See TABLE).
With respect to claims 15-16, Hunter teaches wherein the first and second portions are frustoconical (Fig. 1); and wherein an outer diameter of the butt portion is not tapered (Fig. 1; See also TABLE.
With respect to claim 17, Hunter does not expressly teach wherein an outer diameter of the tip portion is not tapered. However, analogous art reference Meredith teaches this feature to be known in the art – Fig.’s 2c, Fig. 3 showing constant outer diameters at a tip portion. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a uniform diameter at a tip portion. This will expectantly ensure the shaft is easily secured to a hosel portion of a golf club head and provide sufficient stiffness at the top portion.
With respect to claims 19-20, Hunter teaches wherein the wall thickness in the first portion increases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion (TABLE) and wherein the wall thickness in the second portion increases in the direction of the proximal end of the tip portion Id.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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
6. 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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711