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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16, filed 6/2/2023, are pending and are currently under examination.
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.
Claims 1—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solheim (U.S. Patent No. 3,655,188) in view of Ripp et al. (US 2017/0095708 A1) and further in view of Beach et al. (US 2019/0160352 A1).
Claims 1, 6, and 10 each recite, in substance, a plurality of golf club heads comprising a first head and a second head, wherein each head includes: (a) a striking face; (b) a back portion extending from a topline to a sole; (c) a leading edge at the transition between the first striking face and the sole; (d) a hosel configured to receive a shaft defining a shaft axis; (c) a face-centered coordinate system (x, y, z-axis) referenced to a ground plane when the head is in an address position at the prescribed loft angle and a prescribed lie angle; (f) a leading edge plane parallel to the ground plane and passing through a forwardmost point of the leading edge; (g) a shaft axis/leading edge plane intersection point (where the shaft axis intersects the leading edge plane); (h) a vertical heel plane perpendicular to the ground plane and passing through the shaft axis/leading edge intersection point; (i) a vertical toe plane perpendicular to the ground plane and passing through the toewardmost point of the golf club head; (j) a leading edge blade length defined as a distance along the x-axis between the vertical toe plane and the shaft axis/leading edge plane intersection point; (k) a striking face length defined as a distance along the x-axis between the vertical toe plane and the vertical heel plane; and (l) a geometry of the first sole that differs from the geometry of the second sole, with the first leading edge blade length equal to the second leading edge blade length.
Solheim teaches a correlated golf club set designed and measured using precisely defined reference planes and a specific shaft-axis-to-toe-plane length metric. Solheim expressly discloses a length measurement defined as the distance " from a point where the center line of the shaft passes a plane parallel to the first plane to a vertical plane tangent to the toe and perpendicular to the club face." (col. 1, lines 60—63). This “point where the center line of the shaft passes a plane parallel to the [ground] plane” directly corresponds to the claimed “shaft axis/leading edge plane intersection point,” and Solheim’s “vertical plane tangent to the toe and perpendicular to the club face” directly corresponds to the claimed “vertical toe plane.”
Because the heel plane in the claims passes through the shaft axis/leading edge plane intersection point (the same point used as the heel reference for the blade length) the “striking face length” defined in the claims (distance from the vertical toe plane to the vertical heel plane along the x-axis) is geometrically equivalent to the leading edge blade length.” Solheim’s uniform length control across a club set (col. 1, lines 60-63) thus addresses both claimed length limitations simultaneously.
Solheim further teaches maintaining a consistent positional relationship between the shaft axis and the impact/leading-edge geometry across a set of clubs, disclosing that "the plane of the centerline of the shaft ... remains the same distance X from the center of the ball" (col. 3, lines 31— 34) and that "[o]nce the distance X is set ... the distance X is maintained constant ... relative to the leading edge" (Solheim, col. 3, lines 40-44). These teachings correspond to the claim’s limitations of using a ground-referenced address condition with defined planes and reference points to maintain a repeatable heel-to-toe dimensional relationship (equal blade lengths) while permitting other design parameters (such as sole geometry) to vary.
However, Solheim does not expressly disclose a plurality of club heads wherein the sole geometry differs between the first and second heads while the blade length is held equal. Solheim’s correlated set varies loft across clubs; it does not teach a pair of heads sharing the same prescribed loft but having different sole geometries (e.g., different bounce angles or sole contours). The sole-geometry difference (which is the differentiating feature of the first and second heads in the claims) is not disclosed by Solheim.
Ripp teaches a plurality of golf club head configurations formed from a common platform with interchangeable sole components. Specifically, Ripp discloses a “golf club head assembly kit including a main body, a first sole component and a second sole component interchangeably associable with the main body,” wherein the first and second configurations form club heads having a “first sole contour” and a “second sole contour” and a “second sole contour that differs from the first sole contour” ([0009]). The main body includes a “striking face having a face center[,] a leading edge” and a “hosel defining a hosel axis” ([0009]). Ripp teaches that different sole components yield different sole contours on an otherwise common platform and that the set provides “wedges of a prescribed loft…in separate low, medium, and high bounce models” ([0007]). Ripp further teaches evaluation of each head in a reference position relative to a virtual ground plane ([0021]), and that different sole configurations result in differing leading edge heights between the first and second club heads ([0014]).
However, Ripp does not expressly disclose measuring or constraining blade length of the first and second club heads using a shaft axis/leading edge plane intersection point as a heel reference in combination with a vertical toe plane, nor does Ripp expressly disclose a requirement that such a blade length be equal across the two configurations. Ripp’s modular design achieves consistent feel through it’s fixed-main-body platform, but does not expressly articulate or enforce equal blade length condition using the defined reference framework recited in the claims.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Solheim’s blade-length measurement and equality framework into Ripp’s multi-configuration wedge system because both Solheim and Ripp are directed to golf club head design (specifically iron-type and wedge-type club heads) and are in the same field of endeavor. Both references address the same recognized problem: how to provide multiple club head configurations that deliver consistent feel to the golfer. Solheim explicitly identifies that prior art fail to “produce the same ‘feel’ for all clubs” because the shaft leads or lags differently as loft changes (col. 1, lines 28-32) and solves this by controlling blade length uniformly across a set (col. 1, lines 60-63; col. 3, lines 31-34). Ripp identifies that existing wedges tied to a single prescribed bounce require golfers to purchase multiple wedges at the same loft ([0007]-[0008]) and solves this by providing interchangeable sole components on a common platform.
A POSITA would have recognized that combining Ripp’s modular sole system with Solheim’s blade-length uniformity constraint would predictably yield a set of wedge configurations with different bounce and sole options while maintaining the consistent feel that Solheim’s length-control technique is designed to provide. Applying Solheim’s length-measurement framework to Ripp’s retained main body requires no structural change to either design and it amounts to conforming that the fixed main body is dimensioned so that blade length is equal across all sole-component configurations. This combination yields the predictable result of a set of club heads with different sole geometries but equal blade lengths, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Solheim demonstrates that the technique produces the intended uniformity in a golf club context (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 6 is an independent claim that recites all limitations common to claim 1 and additionally requires: (m) the striking face of each head includes a plurality of scorelines having heelwardmost and toewardmost extents; (n) defined face regions, a scoreline region between the heelwardmost and toewardmost scoreline extents, a toe region between the toewardmost scoreline extent and the vertical toe plane, and a heel region between the heelwardmost scoreline extent and the vertical heel plane; (o) a maximum height of the first sole along the y-axis that differs from the maximum height of the second sole along the y-axis; and (p) a length of the first scoreline region along the x-axis that is equal to the length of the second scoreline region along the x-axis.
Regarding the scorelines and face regions, Solheim does not expressly disclose scorelines on the striking face, scoreline extents, or face regions (scoreline region, toe region, heel region) defined by those extents. However, Ripp teaches that the striking face includes “a plurality of grooves” and discloses that the “scorelines extend generally parallel to the ground plane” ([0050]). Ripp’s grooves on the striking face, which extend in the heel-to-toe direction parallel to the ground plane, correspond to the scorelines recited in Claim 6 and have a heelwardmost and toewardmost extents. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Solheim’s blade-length framework to Ripp’s multi-component golf club head (which expressly discloses scorelines on its striking face) because both references address the same goal of providing consistent golf club head geometry, and the combination yields the predictable result of a set of heads with scorelines, different sole geometries, and equal blade length. The scoreline region, toe region, and heel region defined in claim 6 are geometric constructs derived directly from these scoreline extents and the heel/toe planes already established by Solheim’s framework.
Regarding the maximum sole height difference, Solheim does not expressly disclose two club heads sharing the same loft but differing maximum sole height. Ripp teaches that attaching first and second sole components to the common main body results in first and second configurations with different sole contours ([0009]; [0056]) and expressly teaches that the first and second configurations having leading edge heights that differ by at least 0.15 mm when in the reference position ([0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim’s uniform blade length with Ripp’s modular sole system, which necessarily yields configurations with different maximum sole heights as a predictable consequence of swapping sole components having different sole contours. Different sole contours with different leading edge heights, when the heads are evaluated in a ground-reference position, predictably yield a difference in maximum sole height along the y-axis between the two configurations. A POSITA would understand that varying sole geometry via an interchangeable sole component necessarily affects the maximum vertical extent of the sole (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding equal scoreline region length, Neither Solheim nor Ripp expressly discloses a requirement that the scoreline region length be equal across two head configurations. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim and Ripp as described above, because that combination predictably results in equal scoreline region lengths as a necessary geometric consequence. Ripp’s system retains the same main body, including the same striking face and its scorelines, regardless of which sole component is attached ([0009]; [0056]), varying only the interchangeable sole component while keeping the main body constant predictably results in identical scoreline extents, and therefore equal scoreline region lengths, across the two configurations. Equal scoreline region length is the necessary and predictable consequence of Ripp’s retained-main-body design as applied in the Solheim-Ripp combination (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 10 is an independent claim that recites all limitations of claim 6 and additionally requires: (q) a shaft axis/ground plate intersection point (GPIP) for each head, where the shaft axis intersects the ground plane; (r) the first prescribed loft angle equals the second prescribed loft angle; and (s) the distance from the first ground plate intersection point to the first vertical toe plane differs from the distance from the second ground plate intersection point to the second vertical toe plane.
Regarding the ground plate intersection point, neither Solheim nor Ripp expressly disclose a ground plane intersection point of the shaft axis as a named reference point or uses the ground plate intersection point as a measurement reference. However, Beach expressly teaches “a ground plane intersection point of the [shaft axis] SA and the [ground plane] GP” and further teaches that “the [ground plate intersection point] may be used as a point of reference from which features of the golf club head…may be measured or referenced” ([0036]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Beach’s ground plane intersection point into the Solheim-Ripp combination, as Beach confirms the ground plane intersection point is a recognized reference point in the art for measuring golf club head geometry, and applying it to the combined system is the straightforward application of a known measurement reference to a known measurement task with a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding equal prescribed loft angles, Solheim teaches clubs of varying loft across the set and does not expressly disclose two heads sharing the same prescribed loft with different sole geometries. However, Ripp expressly teaches that “wedges of a prescribed loft are provided in separate low, medium and high bounce models,” confirming that multiple sole configurations can share a common prescribed loft ([0007]). Equal prescribed loft angles across the first and second configurations are thus directly taught by Ripp.
Regarding the differing ground plane intersection point to toe-plane distance, Neither Solheim, Ripp or Beach expressly discloses a requirement that this distance differ between two same-loft heads having different sole geometries. However, as a predictable consequence of the Solheim-Ripp combination, when each head is placed in the ground-referenced address position, the location of the ground plane intersection point (where the shaft axis meets the ground plane) is determined by the sole geometry, specifically by the sole contour and bounce angle governing where and at what angle the head rests on the ground. Because Ripp teaches that the first and second sole configurations have different sole contours and bounce characteristics ([0009]; [0056]) and different leading edge heights ([0014]), it would have been obvious to a POSITA that changing the sole contour while keeping prescribed loft constant predictably shifts the ground plane intersection point location and thereby changes the ground plane intersection point to toe-plane distance. This difference is thus the predictable geometric consequence of the differing sole geometry in a ground-referenced address condition, not an independent invented feature (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites the limitation directed to the first prescribed loft angle is equal to the second prescribed loft angle.
Solheim does not expressly disclose two heads sharing the same prescribed loft However Ripp expressly teaches that “wedges of a prescribed loft are provided in separate low, medium, and high bounce models,” confirming that multiple sole-contour configurations can share a common prescribed loft ([0007]). to combine Solheim and Ripp as described above, specifically to apply Solheim’s equal blade length to same-loft heads of the type taught by Ripp, because both references address the same field of golf club head design. Ripp expressly provides the same-loft, different-bounce configurations that supply this limitation, and the combination yields the predictable results of a set of same-loft heads with different sole geometries but equal blade lengths (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes all limitations of claim 2 and, through claim 2, all limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Claim 3 further recites the limitation directed to the first prescribed lie angle is equal to the second prescribed lie angle.
Neither Solheim or Ripp expressly discloses a requirement that the lie angle be maintained equal across two heads that differ in sole geometry. However, Ripp teaches that the hosel (which defines the shaft axis orientation and thereby determines the lie angle) is an integral feature of the retained main body, while only the sole component is interchanged between configurations [0009]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim in view of Ripp and Beach as described above, and in doing so to maintain equal lie angles across configurations, because the hosel and shaft axis orientation remain unchanged across sole-component configurations, equal lie angles across the first and second heads are the predictable consequence of Ripp’s retained-main-body design. Beach further confirms that lie angle is the angle between the shaft axis (SA) and the ground plane (GP), designated angle in Beach’s coordinate system, and is a standard, recognized parameter in the art ([0036]). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes all limitations of claim 2 and, through claim 2, all limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Claim 4 further recites the limitation directed to a maximum sole height of the first sole along the first y-axis is different from a maximum height of the second sole along the second y-axis.
Solheim does not expressly disclose a pair of heads sharing the same loft but differing in maximum sole height. Ripp teaches that attaching the first and second sole components to the common main body yields configurations with different sole contours ([0009]; [0056]) and expressly teaches that the two configurations having leading edge heights that differ by at least 0.15 mm when in the reference position ([0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim’s equal blade length to Ripp’s modular system in which the first and second sole components define different sole contours. The combination yields the predictable result that the two resulting configurations have different maximum sole heights, as a necessary geometric consequence of sole components designed to provide different sole contours and bounce characteristics. A POSITA would have understood that varying sole geometry using an interchangeable sole component predictably affects the maximum vertical extent of the sole (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and therefore includes all limitations of claim 2 and, through claim 2, all limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Claim 5 further recites the limitation directed to a bounce angle of the first sole is different from a bounce angle of the second sole.
Solheim does not expressly disclose two heads of the same loft with differing bounce angles. However, Ripp expressly teaches “separate low, medium and high bounce models” for wedges of a prescribed loft ([0007]) and teaches that each sole component provides a “different bounce relative to the other sole components ([0049]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim’s equal blade length to Ripp’s system in which the sole components expressly provide different bounce angles because both references address the same field, Ripp directly teaches the different bounce-angle configurations and the combination yields the predictable result of same-loft heads with different bounce angles and equal blade lengths (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further recites the limitation directed to a length of the first toe region along the first x-axis is equal to a length of the second toe region along the second x-axis.
Neither Solheim or Ripp expressly discloses a requirement that the toe region length (defined by the toewardmost scoreline extent and the vertical toe plane) be equal across two head configurations. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim and Ripp as described above, because that combination predictably results in equal toe region lengths as a necessary geometric consequence. The toewardmost scoreline extent and the toewardmost point of the club head that establishes the vertical toe plane are both features of the retained main body in Ripp’s system (not of the interchangeable sole component) and therefor remain identical regardless of which sole component is attached. ([0009]; [0056]). A POSITA would have recognized that maintaining the same main body while swapping on the sole component would yield identical toe-region geometry, making equal toe region lengths a predictable and inherent result of the combination (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and therefore includes all limitations of claim 7 and, through claim 7, all limitations of claim 6, as set forth above. Claim 8 further recites the limitation directed to a length of the first heel region along the first x-axis is equal to a length of the second heel region along the second x-axis.
Neither Solheim or Ripp expressly teaches the limitation however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim and Ripp as described above, because that combination predictably results in equal heel region lengths as a necessary geometric consequence. The heelwardmost scoreline extent is a feature of the retained main body face (Ripp, [0009]; [0056]), and the vertical heel plane is anchored to the shaft axis/leading edge plane intersection point, itself a function of the fixed main body’s hosel geometry and Solheim’s equal blade length (Solheim, col. 1, lines 60-63). Because both defining features of the heel region are properties of the unchanged main body, maintaining the same main body while swapping only the sole component predictably yields identical heel-region geometry across the configurations (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and further recites the limitations directed to:
A first shaft axis/ground plane intersection point and a second shaft axis/ground plane intersection point, and;
The distance between the first ground plane intersection point and the first vertical toe plane differs from the distance between the second ground plane intersection point and the second vertical toe plane.
Solheim and Ripp do not expressly disclose the ground plane intersection point as a named reference point or expressly disclose that the ground plane intersection point to toe-plane distance differs between two same-loft heads with different sole geometries. However, Beach expressly teaches “a ground plane intersection point of the [shaft axis] SA and the [ground plane] GP” and further teaches that “the [ground plate intersection point] may be used as a point of reference from which features of the golf club head…may be measured or referenced” ([0036]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Beach’s ground plane intersection point into the Solheim-Ripp combination, as Beach confirms the ground plane intersection point is a recognized reference point in the art for measuring golf club head geometry. The combination of Solheim, Ripp and Beach predictably results in a ground plane intersection point distance difference as a necessary geometric consequence of Ripp’s different sole contours and bounce characteristics (Ripp, [0009]; [0056]) and different leading edge heights (Ripp, [0014]) shifting the ground-contact geometry and thereby changing the position of the ground plane intersection point relative to the toe plane when each head is placed in the reference position (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further recites the limitation directed to a maximum sole height of the first sole along the first y-axis is different from a maximum height of the second sole along the second y-axis.
For the same reasons set forth above for claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim, Ripp, and Beach as described above, because the combination predictably results in different maximum sole heights as a necessary geometric consequence of Ripp’s sole components being designed to provide different sole contours and bounce characteristics (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and therefore includes all limitations of claim 11 and, through claim 11, all limitations of claim 10, as set forth above. Claim 12 further recites the limitation directed to a first striking face length is equal to said second striking face length.
Solheim expressly teaches “the provision of a set of clubs with heads of uniform height and length” and defines that length as measured from “a point where the centerline of the shaft passes a plane parallel to the first plane to a vertical plane tangent to the toe and perpendicular to the club face (col. 1, lines 51-63). As established in claim 1 above, this length definition directly corresponds to the striking face length of the claims, and Solheim’s express teaching of uniform length across the set directly teaches equal striking face lengths.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 10-12, as set forth above. Claim 13 further recites the limitation directed to a first prescribed lie angle is equal to said second prescribed lie angle.
For the same reasons set forth above for claim 3, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim, Ripp, and Beach as described above, because the hosel and shaft axis orientation (which determine lie angle) are features of Ripp’s fixed main body that remain unchanged when only the sole component is swapped (Ripp, [0009]), making equal lie angles the predictable and inherent consequence of the combination, as confirmed by Beach’s identification of lie angle as the standard angle between the shaft axis and the ground plane (Beach, [0036]). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 10-11, as set forth above. Claim 14 further recites the limitation directed to a first scoreline region along said first x-axis is equal to a length of said second scoreline region along said second x-axis.
For the same reasons set forth above for claim 6, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim, Ripp, and Beach as described above, because the combination predictably results in equal scoreline region lengths as an inherent geometric consequence of maintaining the same main body of Ripp’s disclosure. The scoreline extents are properties of the fixed main body face (Ripp, [0009]; [0050]). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 10, 11, and 14, as set forth above. Claim 15 further recites the limitation directed to a first toe region along said first x-axis is equal to a length of said second toe region along said second x-axis.
For the same reasons set forth above for claim 7, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim, Ripp, and Beach as described above, because the combination predictably results in equal toe region lengths as a necessary geometric consequence of maintaining the same main body (including the toewardmost scoreline extent and the toewardmost club head geometry establishing the vertical toe plane) while varying only the sole component (Ripp, [0009]; [0056]). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 10, 11, 14, and 15, as set forth above. Claim 16 further recites the limitation directed to a first heel region along said first x-axis is equal to a length of said second heel region along said second x-axis.
For the same reasons set forth above for claim 8, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Solheim, Ripp, and Beach as described above, because the combination predictably results in equal heel region lengths as a necessary geometric consequence of maintaining the same main body (including the heelwardmost scoreline extent and the vertical heel plane anchored to the shaft axis/leading edge plane intersection point) while varying only the sole component (Ripp, [0009]; [0056]; Solheim, col. 1, lines 60-63). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nix (US 3,984,103 A; 1976) discloses a plurality of golf club heads with equal lie angle
Roberts (US 7,390,270 B2; 2008) discloses a plurality of golf club heads with equal loft angle.
Beach (US 10,467,608 B2, 2019) discloses preferred geometric properties, measurements, and physical attributes of golf club heads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711