Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/190,749

GOLF CLUB HEAD WITH IMPROVED INERTIA PERFORMANCE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Priority
Dec 13, 2018 — CIP of 16/219,651 +4 more
Examiner
HUNTER, ALVIN A
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
ACUSHNET Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
1139 granted / 1327 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1353
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
60.3%
+20.3% vs TC avg
§102
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1327 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The indicated allowability of claims 1-6 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Hirano (US 2011/0152001). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US 2011/0152001). Regarding claim 1, Hirano discloses a club head having a striking face 2, sole 5, weight chamber 10, and weight 14. The striking face has a lower leading edge and an opposite upper topline edge. The sole extends rearward from the lower leading edge wherein the striking face and the sole forms at least a part of an outer surface of the club head. As shown in Figure 9, a weight chamber 10 is formed in the outer surface of the club head. Figures 16- 18 show a weight 14 that is capable of being positionable in a first, second, and third orientations if the orientations are rotatable about three different axes when rotated at 180 degrees. PNG media_image1.png 449 509 media_image1.png Greyscale First orientation PNG media_image2.png 449 509 media_image2.png Greyscale second orientation PNG media_image3.png 449 509 media_image3.png Greyscale Third orientation It should further be noted that Hirano discloses that one end of the weight may be a different mass that the other end of the weight (See Abstract). One having ordain skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the weight member configurable for 3 different orientations, as taught by Hirano, in order to adjust the center of gravity of the club head. Hirano also disclose a cover 13 for securing the weight within the weight chamber. Regarding claim 2, Figure 16 shows the weight being offset from the first axis and from the second axis. Regarding claim 3, Hirano discloses the weight capable of being positioned in a fourth orientation that is rotated from the third orientation about the second axis. PNG media_image4.png 449 509 media_image4.png Greyscale fourth orientation Regarding claim 4, Hirano discloses several configurations of the weight wherein Figure 18 shows the light portion 16 of the weight having a recess 18 at one end and the heavy portion 15 engaging the light portion at the recess in the light portion. Regarding claim 6, Hirano shows the weight chamber and weight having multiple axes wherein Figure 3 shows the first axis being parallel to the toe-heel direction. Based on the weight chamber orientation and the weight orientation as set forth in claim 1, the weight has a first axis parallel to the toe-heel axis and a second axis perpendicular to the first axis. Regarding claim 8, see the above regarding claims 1 and 2. Regarding claim 10, see the above regarding claim 6. Regarding claim 11, as shown above with respect to claim 1, The weight has a first orientation with a heavy portion proximal to the sole, the second orientation having a heavy portion distal to the sole, and the third orientation having the heavy portion proximal to the striking face. Regarding claim 12, Hirano discloses the light portion having a plurality of long sides each being elongated along an elongation direction and shaped and sized such that when the weight is positioned in the weight chamber, the elongation direction is parallel to the first axis. Hirano also disclose the heavy portion coupled o at leas one of the plurality of long sides of the light portion (See Figure 18). Regarding claim 13, Hirano disclose the weight chamber in the sole (See Figures 4, 9, and 10). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14, 15, and 17-20 are allowed. Claims 5 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1-6, 8, 10-14, 15, and 17-21 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN A HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4411. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /ALVIN A HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jan 27, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678669
GOLF CLUB HAVING AN ADJUSTABLE WEIGHT ASSEMBLY
4y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12661561
GOLF CLUB HEAD WITH ADJUSTABLE VIEWABLE WEIGHTING
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12661562
GOLF CLUB INCLUDING SWIVELABLE WEIGHT
3y 1m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12654076
IRON-TYPE GOLF CLUB HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12654074
GOLF CLUB HEAD INCLUDING AN INSERT
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+2.7%)
2y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1327 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month