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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: missing a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 6-9 and 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8, 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,590 (“ ’590 “) in view of Hocknell et al US 7,300,359 (“Hocknell”).
Independent claim 1 of the ‘590 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “A golf coupling mechanism between a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; and a coupler set comprising: up to six couplers protruding from the sleeve outer wall”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘590 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical fastening means to firmly attached a golf shaft-to-hosel-to a golf head in a superior manner and allow customization thereof as suggested by Hocknell (e.g., 2:25+).
Claim 6 recites the same limitations as claim 2 of the ‘590.
Claim 7 recites the same limitations as claim 3 of the ‘590.
Claim 8 recites the same limitations as claim 4 of the ‘590.
Independent claim 8 of the ‘590 recites all the limitations of above claim 9, namely “A golf coupling mechanism for a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; a shaft receiver of the golf club head configured to receive the shaft sleeve; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; a coupler set comprising: up to eight couplers; and the shaft receiver comprises: a receiver coupler set comprising up to eight indentations to receive the up to eight couplers”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘590 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 13 recites the same limitations as claims 9 and 11 of the ‘590.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9 and 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 8-9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,013, 964 (“ ‘964 “) in view of Hocknell.
Independent claim 1 of the ’964 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “A golf coupling mechanism between a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; and a coupler set comprising: up to six couplers protruding from the sleeve outer wall”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘964 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 5 recites the same limitations as claim 2 of the ‘964.
Claim 8 recites the same limitations as claim 4 of the ‘964.
Independent claim 8 of the ‘964 recites all the limitations of above claim 9, namely “A golf coupling mechanism for a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; a shaft receiver of the golf club head configured to receive the shaft sleeve; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; a coupler set comprising: up to eight couplers; and the shaft receiver comprises: a receiver coupler set comprising up to eight indentations to receive the up to eight couplers”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘590 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 13 recites the same limitations as claims 9 and 11 of the ‘964
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,554,296 (“ ‘296 “) in view of Hocknell.
Independent claim 1 of the ‘296 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “A golf coupling mechanism between a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; and a coupler set comprising: up to six couplers protruding from the sleeve outer wall”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘296 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 1 and 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,070,660 (“ ‘660 “) in view of Hocknell.
Independent claim 1 of the ‘660 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “A golf coupling mechanism between a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; and a coupler set comprising: up to six couplers protruding from the sleeve outer wall”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘660 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the same reasons discussed above.
Independent claim 11 of the ‘660 recites all the limitations of above claim 9, namely “A golf coupling mechanism for a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; a shaft receiver of the golf club head configured to receive the shaft sleeve; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; a coupler set comprising: up to eight couplers; and the shaft receiver comprises: a receiver coupler set comprising up to eight indentations to receive the up to eight couplers”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘660 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,398,946 (“ ‘946 “) in view of Hocknell.
Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘946 recites all the limitations of above claim 9, namely “A golf coupling mechanism for a golf club head and a golf club shaft, the golf coupling mechanism comprising: a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel; a shaft receiver of the golf club head configured to receive the shaft sleeve; wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft; a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall; a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve; a coupler set comprising: up to eight couplers; and the shaft receiver comprises: a receiver coupler set comprising up to eight indentations to receive the up to eight couplers”, aside from “a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener”.
However, Hocknell discloses a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (sleeve 46 with internal threads 78 to receive threaded fastener 48)(Figs. 2-5; 6:6-62). Therefore, 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 to form ‘946 with a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener as taught by Hocknell for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golden et al US 8,535,173 (“Golden”).
As per claim 1, Golden discloses a golf coupling mechanism between a golf club head and a golf club shaft (releasable hosel mechanism between head 100 and shaft (not shown))(Figs. 1-3; 5:8-7:65) , the golf coupling mechanism comprising:
a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel (shaft sleeve 210/310)(Figs. 2 and 3; 5:35+); wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises: a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft (Figs. 2 and 3; 5:56-6:41);
a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall (Figs. 2 and 3);
a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (threaded at the bottom of sleeve 210/310 to receive fastener 218/318)(Figs. 2 and 3; 6:2-10);
a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve (construed as wedge ring 212)(Fig. 2; 5:56-6:5);
and a coupler set comprising: up to six couplers protruding from the sleeve outer wall (construed as plurality of tangs 220, which as shown are less than six, and thus interpreted as “up to six couplers”)(Fig. 2; 6:56+).
As per claim 2, Golden discloses wherein: the fastener comprises a head, a shank and a threaded portion (fastener 218)(Fig. 2 and 6:5-10; note also the examiner’s markings hereinafter)
PNG
media_image1.png
495
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 3, with respect to wherein: the threaded bore comprises a minor diameter defined by opposing crests of the threaded bore; the threaded portion comprises a major diameter defined by opposing crests of the threaded portion; and the shank comprises a diameter, note Fig. 3 in conjunction to Fig. 2, regarding the fastener shank, as marked above).
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein: the minor diameter of the threaded bore is less than the major diameter of the threaded portion and the diameter of the shank is less than the minor diameter of the threaded bore, note Fig. 3 as fastener 318 positioned within the threaded bore of the shaft sleeve (again, note the examiner’s markings above regarding the “shank” of the fastener to be as such).
As per claim 7,with respect to wherein: the up to six couplers are configured to restrict rotation of the shaft sleeve relative to the golf club head, note Figs. 2 and 3 in conjunction to at least 5:55+ as the tangs 220 (i.e., up to six couplers) fit with the hosel mechanism (e.g., wedge, and etc.) to firmly retain the shaft sleeve relative to the head. In addition, it is noted that it has been held that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function; and manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The examiner takes the position that Golden’s device is fully capable to perform as such since it includes all the structural limitations as claimed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden.
As per claim 5, although Golden is not specific wherein: the coupler set is asymmetric in profile, it is noted that The Federal Courts have held that the
configuration of the claimed product was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, 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 to form Golden’s coupler set as asymmetric in profile for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as a user’s design choice absent persuasive evidence that such particular configuration is significant.
As per claim 6, although Golden is not specific regarding wherein: the shaft sleeve further comprises a shaft sleeve height, the shaft sleeve height ranging between 2.00 inches and 2.20 inches, it is noted that claimed which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of weight or proportions.
Therefore, 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 to form Golden’s sleeve shaft with such dimensions as claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform
differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case the device of Golden would have not operate differently with the dimension as claimed and would function appropriately with the claimed dimension. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, and merely indicates that the range “may” be within the claimed dimension
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein: the shaft sleeve cap is removably coupled with the shaft sleeve body, note Fig. 2 (5:56+) regarding cap (wedge 212) removably coupled with shaft sleeve body 210.
Golden is not specific regarding and the shaft sleeve cap comprises soft polymeric plastic, wherein the soft polymer plastic can be no greater than 55 on the Shore D durometer scale.
However, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair &Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Therefore, 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 to form Golden’s cap as soft polymer plastic can be no greater than 55 on the Shore D durometer scale for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known material as durable enough yet light enough cap as coupling mechanism between the golf club head and the golf club shaft.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Sato US 2011/0118044 (“Sato”).
As per claim 9, Golden discloses a golf coupling mechanism between a golf club head and a golf club shaft (releasable hosel mechanism between head 100 and shaft (not shown))(Figs. 1-3; 5:8-7:65), the golf coupling mechanism comprising:
a shaft sleeve configured to be coupled to an end of the golf club shaft and a hosel (shaft sleeve 210/310)(Figs. 2 and 3; 5:35+);
a shaft receiver of the golf club head configured to receive the shaft sleeve (head 200/300 includes a receiver to receive the shaft sleeve 210/310 within)(Figs. 2-3; 5:55-6:41) wherein: the shaft sleeve comprises:
a shaft bore configured to receive the end of the golf club shaft (Figs. 2 and 3; 5:56-6:41);
a threaded bore comprising threading corresponding to a securing fastener (threaded at the bottom of sleeve 210/310 to receive fastener 218/318)(Figs. 2 and 3; 6:2-10); a shaft sleeve body comprising a sleeve outer wall (Figs. 2 and 3);
a shaft sleeve cap configured to be coupled with the shaft sleeve (construed as wedge ring 212)(Fig. 2; 5:56-6:5); a coupler set comprising: up to eight couplers (construed as plurality of tangs 220, which as shown are less than eight, and thus interpreted as “up to eight couplers”)(Fig. 2; 6:56+).
Golden is not specific regarding and the shaft receiver comprises: a receiver coupler set comprising up to eight indentations to receive the up to eight couplers.
However, Sato discloses a shaft receiver comprises: a receiver coupler set comprising up to eight indentations to receive up to eight couplers (a head 2 with shaft receiver ( within 2e) to receive a shaft holder 5B (i.e., a shaft sleeve); whereas the receiver 2e includes a plurality (up to eight) convex/concave portions 10/11 (i.e., indentations) complementary to the set of couplers (convex/concave portions 10/11) of holder 5B)(Fig. 8 [0079]+).
Therefore, 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 to form Golden’s shaft receiver comprises: a receiver coupler set comprising up to eight indentations to receive the up to eight couplers for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical means/fastening to firmly connect the golf head-to-shaft sleeve-to-golf shaft.
As per claim 10, Golden discloses wherein: the fastener comprises a head, a shank and a threaded portion (fastener 218)(Fig. 2 and 6:5-10; note also the examiner’s markings hereinafter)
PNG
media_image1.png
495
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein: the threaded bore comprises a minor diameter defined by opposing crests of the threaded bore; the threaded portion comprises a major diameter defined by opposing crests of the threaded portion; and the shank comprises a diameter, note Fig. 3 in conjunction to Fig. 2, regarding the fastener shank, as marked above.
As per claim 12, with respect to wherein: the minor diameter of the threaded bore is less than the major diameter of the threaded portion and the diameter of the shank is less than the minor diameter of the threaded bore, note Fig. 3 as fastener 318 positioned within the threaded bore of the shaft sleeve (again, note the examiner’s markings above regarding the “shank” of the fastener to be as such).
As per claim 13, although Golden is not specific regarding wherein: the coupler set is asymmetric in profile, as mentioned above with respect to claim 5, such would have been obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product was significant. The examiner maintains his position that such modification would have been obvious for the same reasons discussed above (e.g., with respect to claim 5).
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein: the coupler set protrudes from a top section of the sleeve outer wall towards the sleeve top end, note Golden’s Fig. 2 regarding tangs 220.
As per claim 15, with respect to wherein: the receiver coupler set is indented into a top section of a receiver inner wall, note Sato’s Fig. 8 as concave/convex 11/10 with receiver 2e.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden and Sato as applied to claim9 above, and further in view of SATO US 2011/0263348 (“SATO”).
As per claim 16, Golden - Sato is not specific regarding wherein: the shaft bore is further configured to receive and retain a tip weight; and wherein the tip weight is disposed between a bottom surface of the shaft bore and the end of the golf club shaft.
However, SATO discloses a shaft bore is further configured to receive and retain a tip weight; and wherein the tip weight is disposed between a bottom surface of the shaft bore and an end of a golf club shaft (weight material 110 receives within a shaft bore (of shaft case 15) and position between a shaft end (of shaft 14) and bottom surface of the shaft bore)(Figs. 21 and 23; [0123], [0131], [0137] and [0143]).
Therefore, 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 to form the modified Golden’s whereas the shaft bore is further configured to receive and retain a tip weight; and wherein the tip weight is disposed between a bottom surface of the shaft bore and the end of the golf club shaft for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by SATO’s suggestions that such weight means is suitable for adjusting the weight of the golf device (in at least [0018] and [0022]). Such modification to Golden is much desired as it is known to use weight means to adjust a golf device’s weight suitable to user’s preference and performances.
As per claim 17, SATO is not specific regarding wherein: the tip weight comprises a mass ranging from 3 grams to 7 grams. However, as mentioned above, claims which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of weight or proportions; see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it 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 to form Golden’- SATO’s weight means with such dimensions as claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
As per claim 18, although Golden is not specific regarding wherein: the tip weight comprises a height between 0.200 inch and 0.500 inch, the examiner maintains his position that such modification would have been obvious for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 11/20/2025
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711