DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made non-final in response to applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed 12/11/25. Claims 9, 12 and 19 are cancelled; claims 1, 13 are amended; claim 23 is added. Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 13-14, 16, 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jertson et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0213985) in view of Yabu (US Pub. No. 2003/0104878) and further in view of Kusomoto (US Pub. No. 2005/0221913) and even further in view of Takechi (US Pub. No. 2016/0332042) in further view of Beach et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0286611).
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 13-14, Jertson et al. teaches a hollow-type golf club head that, when oriented in a reference position, comprises: a striking wall 730 having a striking face 726 configured to impact a golf ball, the striking face 726 including a face center and a central apex (inherent); a sole portion; a top portion 734 having an exterior surface and an interior surface; a hosel 824 extending from the top portion and defining a hosel axis (Fig.’s 8-11; paragraph [0074]); a plurality of external ribs 1530 located on the exterior surface of the top portion 734, the plurality of external ribs 1530: (i) each being generally elongate in a front-to-rear direction (Fig. 8), (ii) spaced apart from each other by a distance D2 (inherent); (iii) spaced rearwardly from the central apex by a distance D3 (best seen in Fig. 8); and (iv) including at least: a first external rib 1530; and a second external rib 1530 located toe-ward of the first external rib (Fig. 8); and at least one internal rib 1540 (i) located on the interior surface of the top portion 734, (ii) generally elongate in the front-to-rear direction (Fig. 10; paragraph [0075]).
Jertson teaches wherein the external ribs are spaced apart an inherent distance but does not expressly disclose is numeric value, and therefore does not expressly teach a spacing D2 of between 12 and 18mm as claimed. However, Yabu, directed to the analogous art of ribs positioned on the crown of a hollow golf club heads with, teaches such features as spacing ribs 9 on the crown a distance D2 between 12 and 18mm (paragraph [0045]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a spacing interval as taught by Yabu. At paragraph [0051], Yabu discloses wherein the crown ribs are used to control resonance/frequency of the club head and rigidity. By selecting a distance D2 for the external ribs of Jertson within the pitch ranges taught by Yabu, the golf club will have an optimal level of rigidity (i.e. not too large, or too small) and hitting sound (i.e. not too low, or too high). The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as Jertsen et al. expressly contemplates modifications to the rib 1540 arrangements, including their number (paragraph [0076]). Notably, Jertsen et al., like Yabu, expressly recognizes wherein the external ribs contribute to the rigidity and hitting sound of the club (paragraphs [0076]-[0077]), further supporting the combination.
Jertson et al., as stated above, teaches wherein the plurality of external ribs are spaced rearwardly from the central apex by a distance D3 (inherent - Fig. 8). Jertson et al. does not expressly disclose the numerical value of distance D3, however, from Fig. 8 the ribs are spaced rearward of turbulators 1350. Examiner cites to analogous art reference Kusomoto for its express teaching of a rearward offset for a crown rib, denoted by R1, of a distance between 25 mm and 45 mm (Fig. 3; paragraph [0084]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to space the external ribs of Jertson et al. a distance D3 as claimed. Although Kusomoto discusses an offset distance for internal rib 10, the structural significance of the offset is equally applicable to an external rib. As Kusomoto teaches, the rear offset D3 ensures that “plate member 106 is allowed to deflect at the time of impact to thereby enhance the repulsive force” (paragraph [0119]) and to increase rearward rigidity of the crown to facilitate “the deflection of the face portion, thereby making it possible to realize the improvement in the repulsion properties against the ball” (Kusomoto paragraph [0087]). The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as Jertsen et al. expressly contemplates modifications to the rib 1540 arrangements (paragraph [0076]). Should applicant argue that Kusomoto does not teach a sufficiently narrow range for the offset distance (“5 mm or greater”), examiner cites to MPEP 2144.05 - where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05. Again, Kusomoto establishes that the setback distance for a crown rib is a result effective variable for face deflection. Positioning too close will have deleterious effect on the trampoline effect of the face. One ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position the external ribs a distance R3, including within the claimed range, via routine experimentation, to ensure adequate face deflection. Applicant’s specification fails to assign criticality or unexpected results achieved from the claimed range. Jertson et al. would function as intended with the distance D3 as claimed.
Jertson teaches wherein the external ribs 1530 are positioned on the perimeter of the recesses 1534 and the internal ribs 1540 are positioned “substantially” in the middle” of the recesses 1534 (paragraphs [0074]-[0075]). However, Jertson does not disclose numeric values of the rib distances therebetween. Thus, Jertson fails to teach (iii) when viewed in a top view, located between the first external rib and the second external rib and entirely spaced from the first external rib and second external rib by a distance between 2 mm and 6 mm. Examiner cites to Takeshi for its express teaching of an internal rib being entirely spaced from an external rib between 4 mm and 6mm (paragraphs [0047], [0048] – S1, S2 “specifically may be 5 mm or more … and specifically 20 mm or less”). At the time of applicant’s effective filing, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a spacing distance between 4 -6 mm to improve the stability of the golf club at impact by increasing the club inertia in the heel to toe direction. Moreover, the rigidity of the crown is fairly normalized and not excessively localized due to the spacing as taught by Takeshi. Examiner notes that although Takeshi’s ribs are positioned on the sole portion, one ordinary skill in the art would recognize that inertia in the heel to toe direction is dependent on the front to rear mass, which Takeshi and Jertson each teach ribs extending front to rear. As such, the combination is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success. Per MPEP 2131.03, prior art that teaches a range with sufficient specificity overlapping the claimed range anticipates the claim. Here, the range disclosed by Takeshi is narrow and closed and therefore considered to have sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range.
Jertson et al. inherently comprises a center of gravity positioned at prescribed distance from the face center in the heel to toe direction, and inherently comprises a center of gravity depth located a prescribed distance in a direction rearward of perpendicular to the striking wall. Jertson et al. does not expressly disclose these numeric values, thus failing to teach the limitation of a center of gravity located toe-ward of the face center by at least 1.25 mm and having a center of gravity depth located between 40 mm and 50 mm in a direction rearward of and perpendicular to the striking wall. However, CG positioning is known to be a result effective for influencing ball flight, and is known to be used to counter act gear affect caused by mis-center hits. As such, examiner cites tor MPEP 2144.05 – [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller. At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an optimal CGx location (i.e. heel to toe) and CGy (i.e. front to back), including within the claimed range, via routine experimentation. The motivation to provide a toe-ward CG is to counter act hook swings and promote a straighter ball flight for golfers that tend to pull/hook/draw the ball. A large rearward CG location will expectantly increase MOI, and add spin to the ball, which will improve accuracy. These are well-known feature of CG customization that can be used to fit the particular needs of a golfer to provide a desired ball flight as evidenced by extrinsic references Sun (US Pat. No. 6,089,994) at column 1; Matsunaga (Pat. No. 8,992,339) at column 1; Stites et al. (U SPub. No. 2011/0053703 at paragraph [0158], Golden et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0331102) at paragraphs [0002]-[0011]); Billings (US Pub. No. 2006/0135283) entire document; Harbert et al. (US Pat. No. 9,914,027) at column 11. Further, the applicant does not place criticality to the CG location such that an unexpected result is achieved from the claimed CG positions. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as it involves routine discretionary weighting adjustments that will not affect the primary purpose of Solheim. Supplemental to this, analogous art reference Beach et al. teaches that such features as a CG located toe-ward of the face as claimed, and rearward as claimed, is known in the art – paragraphs [0234]-[0236]. The motivation to combine is to promote fade ball flight, or to minimize right to left spin that promotes undesirable hook ball flight. Moreover, the large rearward CG location will expectantly increase MOI, and add spin to the ball, which will improve accuracy.
PNG
media_image1.png
331
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the direction of the measurement of the rearward CGy depth being “perpendicular to the striking wall”, examiner admits Beach teaches CG depth to be measured from the face center to the CG position “parallel” to the ground, shown in direction B, as opposed to direction A as claimed. However, since Beach teaches a range of CGy values of “about 15 mm or less than about 50 mm” (paragraph [0234]) measured in direction B, this will read on the claimed CGy direction A given the small loft values of the driver. That is to say, using simple trigonometry calculations, for loft values of ~10 degrees, the rearward CG measured perpendicular to the face can be calculated and falls within the claimed range.
Lastly, the golf club of Jertson inherently comprises a depth to width ratio, but fails to disclose this numeric value. However, within the art, it is known to provide a depth to width ratio between .90 and .94 as evidenced by Takechi at paragraph [0049]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a more compact wood shape as contemplated by Takechi. The rationale to combine is to improve workability of the club while maintaining high MOI for advantageous direction-ability forgiveness. Supplemental to this, per MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the golf club of Jertson would not operate different with a depth to width ratio within the claimed range. The claimed ratio is known to be result effective for shaping the club, and providing a desired MOI or resistance to twisting. See extrinsic references Boyd (US Pub. No. 2010/0292028) at paragraph [0062]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an ratio, including within the claimed range, via routine experimentation. The motivation to optimize is to expectantly provide resistance to twisting in the heel to toe direction, while also allowing improved drawing/fading (i.e. shaping) compared to more traditional elongated golf wood shapes. Further, the applicant does not place criticality to the claimed range, indicating simply that the thickness contributes to spin rates and the thickness “may” be within the claimed (See paragraph [0021]). No specific purpose for operability has been established in relation to the claimed range. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as it as the primary purpose of Jertson et al. is not frustrated by the modification.
With respect to claims 3 and 16, Jerston et al. teaches a third external rib 1530 located heel-ward of the first external rib (Fig.’s 8, 11).
With respect to claims 5, 7 and 21, Jertson teaches a driver type hollow club (paragraph [0081], but does not expressly disclose the Izz or volume. However, the claimed inertial and volume properties are obvious in the art as evidenced by Beach et al. at paragraphs [0231] and [0239]. At time of applicant’s filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to design the club volume and inertia within the ranges taught by Beach et al, as both references are directed to the analogous art of golf club heads. The motivation to combine references is for the expected purpose of providing forgiveness (large MOI) and large sweet spot (large volume) to the golf club. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success since these are known values for a driver, which Jertson expressly teaches the club to be (paragraph [0081]).
With respect to claim 6, Jertson et al. inherently teaches a CG depth D4 that makes up an inherent percentage of the club depth, but does not expressly disclose these values. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller – MPEP 2144.05. At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would recognize that golf club CG rearward positioning expectantly provides increased inertia of the golf club such that off-center caused face twisting will be reduced. As extrinsic evidence, examiner cites to Johnson et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0031139) at paragraphs [0048]-[0049]. Again, at time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an optimal D4 to depth percentage including within the claimed range for the expected purpose of improving forgiveness with a rearward CG resulting from the increased MOI. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as Fig. 9 shows a rearward weight, implying a desire and means for rearward CG. Moroever, the applicant does not place criticality to the CG location such that an unexpected result is achieved from the claimed CG positions.
With respect to claim 20, Jertson et al. inherently teaches a CG height positioned vertically above a virtual ground plane when in the reference position with the sole contacting the virtual ground, but does not expressly disclose these values. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller – MPEP 2144.05. At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would recognize that golf club CG height is a result effective variable for launch conditions and spin. A low CG promotes high launch conditions and high spin, whereas a mid CG location promotes a lower launch angle, but can travel further due to less spin. These are well-known feature of CG customization that can be used to fit the particular needs of a golfer to provide a desired ball flight as evidenced by extrinsic references Sun (US Pat. No. 6,089,994) at column 1; Matsunaga (Pat. No. 8,992,339) at column 1; Stites et al. (U SPub. No. 2011/0053703 at paragraph [0158], Golden et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0331102) at paragraphs [0002]-[0011]); Billings (US Pub. No. 2006/0135283) entire document; Harbert et al. (US Pat. No. 9,914,027) at column 11. At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an optimal CG height position, including within the claimed range, for the expected purpose of providing a desired launch angle and spin characteristic. Jertson et al. would operate as intended with a CG height as claimed. Moroever, the applicant does not place criticality to the CG location such that an unexpected result is achieved from the claimed CG positions.
With respect to claim 23, Jertson inherently teaches a club width, but fails to expressly disclose this numeric value. However, within the art, it is known to provide a width less than 5 inches as evidenced by Takechi at paragraph [0049]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a width less than 5 inches as contemplated by Takechi. The rationale to combine is to improve workability of the club and allow easier hitting from rough lies as the club can be delivered at a steeper angle to the ball. Supplemental to this, per MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the golf club of Jertson would not operate different with a width within the claimed range. The claimed width is known to be result effective for shaping the ball, and providing a desired MOI or resistance to twisting. See extrinsic references Funayama etal. (US Pub. No. 2008/0113825). At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a width, including within the claimed range, via routine experimentation. The motivation to optimize is to expectantly provide resistance to twisting in the heel to toe direction, while also allowing improved drawing/fading (i.e. shaping) compared to more traditional elongated golf wood shapes. Further, the applicant does not place criticality to the claimed range, indicating simply that the thickness contributes to spin rates and the thickness “may” be within the claimed (See paragraph [0022]). No specific purpose for operability has been established in relation to the claimed range. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as it as the primary purpose of Jertson et al. is not frustrated by the modification.
4. Claims 2, 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jertson et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0213985) in view of Yabu (US Pub. No. 2003/0104878) and further in view of Kusomoto (US Pub. No. 2005/0221913) and even further in view of Takechi (US Pub. No. 2016/0332042) in further view of Beach et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0286611) and Tom (US Pat. No. 6,319,148).
As per claim 2, from Fig.’s 8 and 11, Jertson et al. shows a slight divergence of the external ribs 1530 in the rearward direction. However, Tom, directed to the analogous art of golf club heads with rib portions, teaches such features as converging ribs 62 to be known in the art (Fig. 5 – ribs 62, Column 8, lines 1-29). Hence, at the time of invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to converge the ribs in the rearward direction for the expected purpose of improving aerodynamics of the body and increasing the clubs’ ability to return to a square face to promote straight ball flight (Tom - column 8, lines 5-20). The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as Jertson et al. expressly contemplates modifications to the rib 1540 and recess arrangements (paragraph [0076]).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, the golf club of Jertson et al inherently comprises a virtual plane extending in a front to rear direction, intersecting the face center. Admittedly, the first external rib is offset from the virtual vertical plane and does not intersect the face center – See Fig. 8 showing the most central rib 1530 slightly offset from the face center. However, analogous art reference Tom, cited above for the converging external ribs, further teaches wherein its first central external rib 62 extends along a virtual vertical plane 53 intersecting a face center 52 of the golf club head (Fig. 5 – face center 52 appears to be labeled 54 in error). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above. Additionally, the central positioning of the rib will provide structural rigidity to the face center, which is a region frequently hit and has large face deformation at impact. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as Jertson et al. expressly contemplates modifications to the rib 1540 and recess arrangements (paragraph [0076]).
5. Claims 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jertson et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0213985) in view of Yabu (US Pub. No. 2003/0104878) and further in view of Kusomoto (US Pub. No. 2005/0221913) and even further in view of Takechi (US Pub. No. 2016/0332042) in further view of Beach et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0286611) and Horacek et al. (US Pat. No. 7,854,666).
With respect to claims 10-11 and 17-18, Jertson et al. does not expressly teach wherein the internal rib 1540 extends closer to the striking face than a step-down portion of the crown that moves toward the sole. However, Horacek et al., directed to the analogous art of hollow golf clubs, teaches such features to be known in the art – Fig. 10 (g), (h) showing internal rib 404 extending forward of the step-down portion, more closer to the face. At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a step down portion into Jertson et al. and lengthen the internal rib 1540 to extend closer to the striking face than the step down. The motivation to combine is derived from the express teaching of Horacek: From column 4, lines 1-30, the step-down portion will expectantly reduce clubhead volume and required manufacturing material which will decrease manufacturing costs. The step down also lowers club CG to produce “improved launch conditions” Id. Horacek further teaches that the internal rib serves to provide “tuning of the modal characteristics” of the club and increases the bending stiffness of the crown (column 6, lines 34-45). The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success. For example, the turbulators can be positioned at a non-stepped portion of the face and the recesses can be positioned rearward of the step down. This will ensure that the step-down portion is incorporated without negating any of the crown features taught by Jertson et al. Moreover, lengthening the internal rib 1540 such that it extends closer to the face than the step-down portion can be accomplished by known rib formation techniques.
6. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jertson et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0213985) in view of Yabu (US Pub. No. 2003/0104878) and further in view of Kusomoto (US Pub. No. 2005/0221913) and even further in view of Takechi (US Pub. No. 2016/0332042) in further view of Beach et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0286611) and Cackett et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0019267).
With respect to claim 22, Jertson et al. inherently teaches wherein the club head comprises a product of inertia Ixy, wherein x-, y-, and z-directions correspond to a virtual coordinate system having its origin coincident with the center of gravity of the club head such that: an x-axis extends in the front-to-rear direction, a y-axis extends in the heel-to-toe direction, and a z-axis extends vertically, but fails to expressly disclose this numeric value. Examiner cites to analogous art reference Cackett et al. for its express teaching of a golf club comprising a product of inertia Ixy no greater than 540 g*cm^2 (paragraphs [0087], [0097]-[0099]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a small Ixy value for the golf club of Jertson et al. The ratione to combine is to provide a generally symmetrical golf club, with improved shot dispersions for off-center hits.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 7, applicant argues modifying reference Takechi fails to teach or suggest any depth to width ratios. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is set forth in paragraph [0049].
Conclusion
8. 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