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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 2 submitted 10/11/2023 does not include the proper header (see below). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Simone et al. (2022/0372597). Claim 1, Simone discloses a golf club head, comprising a striking face portion, and an aft body portion (fig 1). The striking face portion comprising an alpha-plus-beta titanium alloy comprising four or more beta stabilizers and one or more alpha stabilizers, each of the four or more beta stabilizers being independently present in the titanium alloy in an amount of about 0.25 to about 1.75 wt% (molybdenum 0.5-3.5%, vanadium 1-6%, silicon 0.05-0.3%, iron 0.1-1.5%), and the one or more alpha (a) stabilizers (aluminum) being present in the titanium alloy in an amount of about 7 to about 9 wt% [0002, 0020, 0057]. Claim 2, Simone discloses wherein each of the four or more beta stabilizers is independently present in the titanium alloy in an amount of about 0.5 to about 1.5 wt% (molybdenum 0.5-3.5%, vanadium 1-6%, silicon 0.05-0.5%, iron 0.1-1.5%) [0002, 0020, 0055]. Claim 6, the one or more alpha (a) stabilizer comprises Al [0057]. Claim 7, the titanium alloy comprises an amount of Al of about 7 to about 10 wt%. Claim 9, Simone discloses the striking face comprises a face insert with the titanium alloy [0002].
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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone et al. (2022/0372597). Claim 3, Simone discloses each beta stabilizer is present in the amount of molybdenum 0.5-3.5%, vanadium 1-6%, silicon 0.05-0.7%, and iron 0.1-1.5% [0002, 0020, 0055]. The silicon is present in the amount up to 0.7%, which borders applicant’s value of 0.75. One of ordinary skill in the art would have increased the amount for the desired performance.
Claim 5, Simone discloses each of the four or more beta stabilizers are independently presently present in the titanium alloy (molybdenum 0.5-3.5%, vanadium 1-6%, silicon 0.05-0.7%, iron 0.1-1.5%) [0002, 0020, 0055]. Simone does not specifically disclose each stabilizer in the same amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would vary the quantities by routine experimentation for the desired performance. "[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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone et al. (2022/0372597) in view of Wu (2004/0261912). Claim 4, Simone does not disclose manganese as an option for the four or more beta stabilizers. Wu teaches a titanium alloy comprising beta stabilizers including manganese (Mn) [0050]. One of ordinary skill in the art would include manganese for the desired strength. Claim 8, Simone discloses Ti- Al-V-Si-Fe-Mo as shown above, but does not disclose manganese (Mn) and chromium (Cr). Wu teaches a titanium alloy comprising beta stabilizers including manganese (Mn) and chromium (Cr) [0050]. One of ordinary skill in the art would include manganese and chromium for the desired strength and corrosion resistance (Cr).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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 RAEANN GORDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/RAEANN GORDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
March 17, 2026