DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicants’ Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 1/26/26. Claim 2 is cancelled; claims 1, 3-5, 8 and 13 are amended; claims 1 and 3-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “aligns with center of the putter head” should be amended to “aligns with the center plane of the putter head”. 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt (US Pat. No. 4,265,451) in view of Sasse (US Pat. No. 4,988,107), or in the alternative, in further view of Palmer (US Pat. No. 3,037,770).
With respect to claims 1-14, Bernhardt teaches a plumber's neck putter, comprising: a putter head 22 having a heel end 32; a toe end 33 opposite to the heel end 32; a putting face 29 disposed on the putter head 22; a top surface 31 disposed on the putter head; and a hosel 23 for attaching the putter head 22 to a shaft 21, the hosel comprising: an elongated first portion 44 extending upward from the top surface 31 of the putter head 22; a second portion 46 extending from the first portion 44 in forward direction relative to the putting face 29, the second portion 46 further comprises a leading edge (i.e. the edge of groove 49 – See annotated Fig. 2 below) aligning with a center plane 34 of the putter head 22 extending in a front-to-back direction (See second annotated Fig. 2 below), the second portion 46 also having a width forming a horizontal offset extending toward the heel end 32 of the putter head 22 (Fig.’s 1-5; column 5, lines 3-24; column 6, lines 26-44); wherein the second portion 46 comprises a wide section that extends at substantially the same width along length of the second portion 46 (Fig.’s 5); wherein the hosel 23 is attached to the top surface 31 of the putter head 22 at the center 34 of the putter head (Fig.’s 1-5; column 7, line 45).
Bernhardt is construed as teaching wherein the hosel 23 is offset in front of the putting face and the hosel is offset from the center plane 34 of the putter head in the direction of the heel end of the putter. Per MPEP 2111, the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard: The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In the instant case, applicant’s hosel is not entirely offset in front of the putting face. In fact, as shown in Fig 3, a significant portion of the hosel is not offset forward of the putting face. As such, when at least a portion of a hosel is offset in front of the putting head and offset from the center plane of the putter head in the direction of the heel end of the putter, the claim limitation will be considered met. That is to say, even if the entirety of the hosel is not completely offset as claimed, where at least a substantial portion of the hosel is offset as claimed, the claim elements will be considered met taking a broad and reasonable interpretation in view of applicant’s specification as a whole.
Bernhardt further wherein the leading edge aligns extends perpendicular to the putting face 29 and is configured to coincide with an alignment line on a golf ball (Per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the leading edge is capable of coinciding with an alignment line on a golf ball);
PNG
media_image1.png
263
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bernhardt teaches an intermediate connecting structure 45 that extends from the second portion 46 at an angle toward the heel end 32 and connects the hosel to the shaft, but does not teach wherein this component 45 is a socket with an opening. However, analogous art reference Sasse teaches that it is known in the art for a hosel to comprise a socket 39 with an opening that extends at an angle toward a heel end and connects the hosel to a shaft 13 (Fig.’s 1-2; column 3, lines 18-20). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a socket for the intermediate connecting structure 45. The rationale to combine is to facilitate connection between the second portion and a shaft. Moreover, the socket will allow for multiple shafts to be used, which beneficially permits customization for the golfer. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the functionality of Bernhardt is not compromised, and both elements 45 of Bernhardt and socket 39 of Sasse are heel-wardly oriented from an offsetting second portion.
Should applicant argue that Bernhardt fails to teach a leading edge aligning with a center plane, wherein the hosel is offset from the center plane of the putter head in the direction of the heel end of the putter, examiner submits an alternative rejection invoking the teachings of Palmer. Specifically, Palmer teaches that it is known to provide a hosel with a leading edge aligned with a center plane of a putting face, wherein the hosel is offset from the center plane in the direction of the heel end of the putter – Fig.’s 1-2 showing hosel leading edge at 25 aligning with center plane 15. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Bernhardt such that its leading edge is aligned with the center plane, and wherein the hosel is offset towards the heel, as taught by Palmer. The rationale to combine is set forth in Palmer – “sight line for the player” so that it “makes it easy to properly align the club head against the ball preliminary to striking the ball” (column 3, lines 25-35). The combination, as one ordinary skill in the art would understand, would result in the ledge 46 having its toe-ward most portion being aligned with center plane since Bernhardt expressly teaches that ledge 46 is used as an alignment means.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bernhardt fails to teach a leading edge used as an alignment surface. First, examiner notes the claims do not expressly require the leading edge to be the edge that is at a toe-ward most portion of the second portion. As set forth above, the leading edge in Bernhardt is an edge that defines the groove/channel. This edge is aligned with the putter head center plane as shown above in the annotated drawings. Secondly, applicant’s argument is directed to intended use. See MPEP 2114 – In re Schreiber. A golfer can align the leading edge referenced above in the annotated drawings of Bernhardt with the center plane and an alignment aid positioned on the golf ball.
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
Prosecution Insights