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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As set forth in the previous office action;
“In claims 10-12 the introduction of “a crown leading edge of said striking face portion” is indefinite in that it fails to define the structural relationship of the feature or the element with respect to either the crown or the striking face. Here it is unclear if such an edge is part of the crown, the striking face portion or some separate element.
As to claims 18-20, [00116] of the specification discusses crown apex point 2252, “generally defined as the highest point of the crown”. However, the claims are indefinite with respect to how the claimed distance is to be defined with respect to the central opening. Here the are multiple interpretations such as measured to an edge, to a central point or to some other feature of the central opening. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be clearly determined. “
With respect to the recitation of, "a crown leading edge of said striking face portion", applicant merely asserts that such is, “in the claims itself”, as being a striking face portion. This response does nothing to clarify any structural relationship of how one is interpreting “a crown leading edge” with respect to the other recited elements. The striking face portion is broadly recited in claim 9 as a general frontal portion of the club that is adapted to impact a golf ball and no crown is recited at all. Where claim 10 introduces a “crown leading edge of said striking face”, there is no limitation that necessitates that such is part of the striking face or if such is merely descriptive of a feature of the crown or another element. If the crown leading edge is merely the location where the crown meets the striking face, such should be positively recited and not left open to speculation or multiple interpretations. If a claim is amenable to two or more plausible constructions, applicant is required to amend the claim to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention or the claim is indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008).
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to claim 13 are noted.
The rejection of claims 11 and 12 has not been sustained in view of MPEP 2173.05(c)(I).
With respect to claims 18-20, Applicant points to [00116]. However, such is not considered to be an explicit definition of how a crow apex is to be determined or how the “distance away” is measured. Claims 18-20 broadly suggest that the distance can merely be directly from point to point. The specification seems to suggest that such a distance is between parallel lines passing between points on each element. Instead, the specification is broadly exemplary with respect to fig. 22 identified as element 2252. This “highest point of the crown” further appears is dependent upon the orientation of the club which is undefined in the scope of the claim. Since the claim leaves open to speculation how such a distance is defined and measured, the claims remain indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sander 2015/0119165.
As to claim 9, Sander shows a golf club head with a striking face portion 12 located at a frontal portion of said golf club head, adapted to impact a golf ball, and a body portion 22, attached to a rear of said striking face portion, wherein said striking face portion further comprises a perimeter region 52 having a central opening wherein said perimeter region further comprises a thickened stress reducing region 48, having a fourth thickness, and a face insert 54 adapted to engage said central opening, wherein said face insert further comprises a thickened central region 50 located near a geometric center of said striking face portion, having a first thickness, wherein no part of said thickened stress reducing region engages said face insert, and wherein said fourth thickness is greater than said first thickness.
As to claims 10-12, where a top ledge of said central opening can be defied at 70 in fig. 3 and a crown leading edge of said striking face portion can be defined at 52 to coincide with it such that they are essentially 0 mm away from each other, such are considered to meet the range of less than .9mm away.
Claim 13 is considered met where the thickened central portion can be described as an incomplete circle in it ovular shape as shown in fig. 7.
Claim 14 is considered shown where the flatter crown side shape of the oval central portion can be described as a discontinuity of an incomplete circle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Galloway et al. 2002/0028715
As to claims 15-20, Sander is considered to inherently possesses the dimensions of an aspect ratio and distance from some defined top ledge to a crown. However, he fails to discuss any such dimensions.
Galloway teaches providing an aspect ratio of less than 1.7 and that such will affect the COR and face deflection. To have selected a size of the face insert of Sanders to possess an aspect ration below 1.7 meeting the claimed ranges set forth in claims 15-17 would have been obvious in order to achieve the desired deflection of the face plate.
As to claims 18-20, a top ledge is broadly recited with no limitations as to how such relates to other recited elements in the claims. As such on can select a point on the crown of Sander such defining it as the top ledge such that it is less than 8mm from an apex in order to meet the limitation of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejections under 112 are responded to above in the grounds for rejection.
As to Sanders and the art rejection, applicant argues he fails to teach the feature wherein no part of said thickened stress reducing region engages said face insert. In light of the specification, we turn to [00115] of the specification which states that the striking face portion 1902 is formed in a way wuch that no part of 2020 engages 2104. This is confusing when viewed in fig. 20 and adds no clarity to the scope of the claims.
Applicant argues that Sanders clearly shows that the (face insert)/face 12 touches the (thickened stress reducing region)/flange 72, apparently equating that to “engaging” as recited in the claim. The Examiner shares no such limited meaning to the such a term. Applicant’s face insert also “touches” his thickened stress reducing region depending on how one defines the limits and extents to each of those elements. As such, his remarks and rational are not persuasive to show how the language in his claims clearly distinguishes over the applied art.
Where applicant’s own fig. 20 still appears to have a “ledge” on the thickened stress reducing region upon which the face plate is mounted, it subjectively may or may not be described as engaged with the thickened stress reducing region via that ledge. Such depends on how one broadly interprets the extents of his thickened stress reducing region. Where the back portion of Sanders 48 is considered, a thickened stress reducing region on can say no part of it engages his face plate. As such, applicant’s remarks fail to show how the language in the claims clearly distinguishes over the applied art.
Applicant offers an annotated version of his figs. 21 and 22 with arrows. However, such is confusing how the arrows amount to any structure that meets the function recited in the claim that no part of the thickened stress reducing region engages the face plate. Figs. 20 and 22 at best show the elements of the face plate and thickened stress reducing region are separate elements attached together and as such can be deemed not engaging. Similarly, Sanders can be described as not engaging. Here the structures that amount to the function recited in the claim is broadly unclear and fails to distinguish over the applied art.
With respect to claims 15-20, the scrivener's error missing the obviousness form paragraphs has been corrected above. With respect to the rejection, applicant erroneously argues that Galloway does not even have a face insert and remains confused but again. Ln. 5 of his abstract clearly shows his striking plate synonymous with applicant’s face insert 3. He is not limited to any particular construction of the face or its mounting to the body as oppose to the dimensional relationships. In his “Description of Related Art” he refers to many striking face structures. so Applicant as to how it can teach an aspect ratio of a face insert.
Applicant argues that Galloway also makes no mention of an apex, yet such an apex is inherent in all clubs including Sanders. Claim 18-20 broadly recite some, “top ledge of said central opening,” without limitation such that any point to measure such that a distance can be selected at any point along Sander’s element 48 to meet the 8-10mm away requirement recited in the claims;
PNG
media_image1.png
374
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, the broad recitations and lack of structural relationships in the claims fails to positively distinguish over the art of record.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights