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 claimed subject matter first appears in 15/628,639, U.S. Patent 10,888,743
and as such the effective filing date is take to be 6/20/2017, the date of that application.
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)(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, 7, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westrum et al. 9,808,685.
Westrum is considered to have an effective filing date of 2/9/2017 before that of the subject matter of the instant application.
As to claim 1, the common features of a club head recited in claim 1 are considered clearly anticipated and the elements recited with their structural relationships are considered shown in the annotated drawing;
PNG
media_image1.png
584
1098
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An inflection angle as called for in claim 7 is considered inherent in Westrum as shown in the annotated drawing and is fairly suggested to be just over 90 degrees within the broad range of 70-150 recited in claim 8.
Claim 12 can be inherently met where one is capable of drawing a line to the bottom incline outer wall such that it forms and angle of 15-45 degrees to the ground plane.
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) 2-6, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Westrum.
As to claims 2-6 a first and second reference point can be defined on Westrum such that it defined a wall height within the recited range.
As shown in fig. 4, 60 is considered to show a channel extending from toe region to the heel region with a channel width capable of being measured from the rear back wall to the second reference point substantially parallel to the ground plane such that it can vary as called for in claim 13 and 15.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westrum.
As to claims 9-11, and 14 Westrum does not discuss the length of his bottom incline, or rear back wall or the width of his channel. However, changes in size have been held to be obvious. One skilled in the art can effectively computer model club head designs to determine properties that are desirable without undue effort. To have selected a range of 0.10 inch to 0.210 inch for the size of the bottom incline of Westrum and arear back wall length a range of 0.150 inch to 0.400 inch would have been obvious in order to design the club to optimize its desired designed properties. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Pierce whose telephone number is (571)272-4414 and E-mail address is bill.pierce@USPTO.gov. For emergency assistance, supervisory assistance can be obtained with Nicholas Weiss at (571)270-1775.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, communication via email at the above address may be found more effective. Where current PTO internet usage policy does not permit an examiner to initiate communication via email, such are at the discretion of the applicant. However, without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me by responding to this inquiry by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILLIAM M PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711