DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments received 20 July 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soracco et al. (US 2016/0125494 A1) in view of Amarant et al. (US 2019/0344139 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soracco discloses a method [100] for producing a golf club component [10, 40], comprising: receiving [130] a selection of at least one parameter (paragraph 0064: “user choices”) from a user via a user interface (Figure 8), wherein the at least one parameter (paragraph 0064: “user choices”) is selected from a plurality of parameters [127]; generating [137] a design model of the golf club component [10, 40] based on the selected parameter (paragraph 0064: “user choices”); providing [110, 40] the design model of the golf club component [10, 40] to an additive manufacturing system [150]; and forming [145] the golf club component [10, 40] using the additive manufacturing system [150] (paragraphs 0032-0034, 0044, 0051, 0059-0072, 0076-0078, 0086-0093, and Figures 1-9). Soracco does not disclose the golf club component being provided with a plurality of machine-readable markings that contain a code corresponding to a unique identifier. Amarant, however, teaches a similar golf club component [202], wherein the golf club component [202] is provided with a plurality of machine-readable markings [212] that contain a code (paragraph 0046: “[t]he barcode may be a one-dimensional barcode or a two-dimensional barcode, such as a QR code”) corresponding to a unique identifier (paragraph 0033: “unique identifiers (IDs)”) configured to enable authentication of the golf club component [202], wherein the code (paragraph 0046: “[t]he barcode may be a one-dimensional barcode or a two-dimensional barcode, such as a QR code”) corresponds to encoding parameters (paragraph 0034: “unique ID” and/or “table or matrix”) stored remotely (in database [112]), and wherein the encoding parameters (paragraph 0034: “unique ID” and/or “table or matrix”) include at least one of a manufacturing date, manufacturing location, identification of a manufacturer, or one or more numbers (paragraph 0034: “unique ID” and/or “table or matrix;” wherein tables and matrices in databases are made up of binary code (i.e., 1s and 0s)) associated with a customized feature of the golf club component [202] (paragraphs 0031-0034, 0041, 0046-0047, and Figures 1A and 2A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Soracco’s golf club component with a plurality of machine-readable markings that contain a code corresponding to a unique identifier because Amarant teaches that this method allows for the detection of the configuration of the golf club such that swing and ball flight data can be analyzed to generate recommendations for the best fit for the player (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of parameters [127] are generated based on data [125] associated with the user (paragraphs 0060-0064 and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing system [150] comprises at least one of a heat treatment, a surface finish treatment (paragraph 0088: “overall finish of surface (e.g., anodized, painted, decal set)”), or an assembly step (paragraph 0050: “club heads may include tapped holes or fastener assemblies for club construction;” paragraph 0071: “the component may be provided to an assembler who will combine the fabricated component with other fabricated components;” and paragraph 0093: “the club heads may be assembled into clubs on site”) (paragraphs 0050, 0071, 0088, and 0093).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the golf club component [10, 40] is a portion of a golf club head (paragraphs 0044, 0051, and Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of parameters [127] include: club type, club shaft type (paragraph 0064: “golf club shaft type”), club shaft length (paragraph 0064: “golf club shaft length”), club shaft stiffness, club shaft material, club shaft shape (paragraph 0064: “golf club shaft shape”), club shaft color (paragraph 0064: “golf club shaft color”), club grip type (paragraph 0064: “golf club grip type”), club grip thickness, club grip length, club grip material, club grip color (paragraph 0064: “golf club grip color”), club head type (paragraph 0064: “golf club head type”), club head color (paragraph 0064: “golf club head color”), club head loft angle (paragraph 0064: “golf club loft angle”), club head lie angle (paragraph 0064: “golf club lie angle”), club head weight (paragraph 0064: “golf club head weight”), club head size (paragraph 0064: “golf club head size”), club head volume (paragraph 0064: “golf club head volume”), club head shape (paragraph 0064: “golf club head shape”), club head material, club head surface roughness, club head reflectivity, club head alignment aid configuration, club head toe support lines, club head sole bounce, club head sole design, club head sole width, club head crown design, club head center of gravity location (paragraph 0064: “golf club head center of gravity”), club head moment of inertia values, club head product of inertia values, club head coefficient of restitution, club head face angle, club head face thickness, club head face size (paragraph 0064: “golf club head face size”), club head face design, club head face profile shape, club head offset, club head topline thickness, club head length, club head blade length, club head scoreline length, club head scoreline spacing, club head scoreline pattern, club head scoreline location, club head hosel length, club head hosel configuration, club head hosel design, club head blade profile shape, club head leading edge type, club head par area length, club head groove type, club head groove design, club head impact point location, club head impact sound, club head impact feel, club head filler material, club head filler density, club head weight receptacles and weight members attachable thereto, club head weight members, club head finish type, club head insignia (paragraph 0064: “golf club insignia”), club head medallion design (paragraph 0064: “golf club head medallion”), club price, number of clubs of the golf club set (paragraph 0064: “number of clubs”), or manufacturing information (paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the golf club component [10, 40] includes an internal void [56] (paragraphs 0053-0054 and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the design model is provided to the user (paragraph 0090: “showing the user a product example”) and the user provides the design model to the additive manufacturing system [150] (paragraph 0092: “the user places an order”) (paragraphs 0069-0071, 0090, 0092, and Figures 6, 8, and 9).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to receiving [130] the selection: receiving [120] information from the user; comparing [125] the information to a database [123] to correlate the information to the plurality of parameters [127]; and outputting the plurality of parameters [127] to the user on the user interface (Figure 8) (paragraphs 0060-0064, 0086, 0088-0090, and Figures 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Soracco discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the information (see [120]) includes one or more of: height (paragraph 0060: “height”), weight (paragraph 0060: “weight”), sex (paragraph 0060: “sex”), handedness (paragraph 0060: “handedness”), age (paragraph 0060: “age”), golf score handicap (paragraph 0060: “golf score handicap”), club head swing speed (claim 34: “club head swing speed”), club head angle of attack (claim 34: “club head angle of attack”), club head swing path (claim 34: “club head swing path”), angle of head rotation prior to impact, or club head acceleration curve (paragraph 0060, claim 34, and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 32, Amarant discloses in the modified Soracco the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of machine-readable markings [212] are integrally formed (paragraph 0047: “the configuration identifiers may be printed or manufactured directly on the golf club 200”) with the golf club component [202] (paragraphs 0046-0047 and Figure 2A). It directly follows that when Amarant is combined with Soracco for the reasons provided in paragraph 5 above, the plurality of machine-readable markings would be integrally formed with the golf club component by the additive manufacturing system.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soracco in view of Amarant as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Roach et al. (US 11,511,166 B1).
Regarding claims 7-9, the modified Soracco does not disclose a lattice structure at least partially disposed within the void. Roach, however, teaches a similar golf club component [901] including an internal void [917], wherein a lattice structure [927] is at least partially disposed within the internal void [917], wherein the lattice structure [927] is exposed or visible from an exterior of the golf club component [901], wherein the lattice structure [927] is formed of a first material and at least a portion of the golf club component [901] is formed of a second material that is different than the first material (col. 6 lines 7-10: “a ball-striking face plate comprises a first metal that is otherwise unable to be welded to the golf club head body (i.e., the body and ball-striking face have dissimilar materials)”) (col. 6 lines 6-14, 42-45, col. 11 line 26 – col. 12 line 3, and Figures 11-14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Soracco’s golf club component to include an exposed lattice structure at least partially disposed within the internal void because Roach teaches that this configuration reduces weight, maintains strength, and provides a very strong structure with optimized mass and a high characteristic time (col. 11 line 52 – col. 12 line 3)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soracco in view of Amarant as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Davenport (US 2015/0005089 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Soracco does not disclose receiving an impact location for the user. Davenport, however, teaches a similar method for producing a golf club component (paragraph 0365: “custom club face”), comprising receiving an impact location (paragraph 0366: “impact location”) from the user, wherein the impact location includes an average impact location (paragraph 0366: “average and median impact location”), a maximum impact location, or a minimum impact location (paragraph 0365-0366). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Soracco to receive an average impact location from the user because Davenport teaches that this method similarly allows for a custom club face to be fabricated based on design parameters that are specific to the golfer (paragraphs 0365-0366).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soracco in view of Amarant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marc Uible (“The Ultimate Guide to Brand NFTs”).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Soracco does not disclose minting a non-fungible token prior to providing the design model to the additive manufacturing system. Uible, however, teaches a similar method of creating a design model (page 4: “highly customizable product;” wherein customizing includes a design), and minting a non-fungible token to a blockchain ledger, the non-fungible token being associated with a virtual object and metadata, wherein at least one of the virtual object or metadata includes the design model (page 4: “highly customizable product;” wherein customizing includes a design) (pages 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mint an NFT associated with the design model of the modified Soracco because Uible teaches that offering buyers the opportunity to buy an NFT for a highly customizable product, along with the physical product, allows users to uniquely own a digital expression of their style (pages 2 and 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. Specifically, the Konow reference has been removed. New art to Amarant has been applied as outlined above.
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 AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights