DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communication received 05/08/2026 – Request for Continued Examination (RCE) and Amendment.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-54 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments received 05/08/2026, the applicant responds to each of the minor objection to claim 48, the objections to the specification, the objections to the drawings and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. The applicant sets forth a detailed explanation in an effort to convince the Office that patent drawings can provide support for the claimed subject matter (see scanned page 7 of the Remarks, received 05/08/2026). The applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the claimed subject matter in the instant application, specifically the language identified in the claims requiring “at a normal address position, a peak crown height of the crown portion is forward of a center-of-gravity of the golf club head; and a toewardmost portion of the golf club head is forward of a golf club head center-of-gravity X-axis”, is clearly shown in the drawings. Moreover, and with respect to further amendments to the claims, the applicant argues that the limitations “the center of gravity is below a plane that is parallel to the y-axis and intersects the rearmost location of the crown portion” are also clearly shown in the drawings.
IN RESPONSE:
The minor objection to claim 48 has been overcome by the amendment to claim 48.
The rejections of claims 21-48 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph have been overcome by the various amendments to the claims.
For the most part, the objections to the specification, the objections to the drawings and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph relate to language that the applicant insists finds support in the drawings. The Office is not contesting the fact that drawings alone in some instances may provide a “written description” of the claimed subject matter and that possession by an inventor or joint inventor of the invention may be shown through figures. Rather, the Office is asserting that the claim language “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis” is not readily and plainly shown in the drawings. In this case, the originally-filed drawings are simply not sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor(s) was/were in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time of filing. Moreover, the originally-filed specification is completely silent with respect to any relationship between a location of the peak crown height and a direction toeward of the club head center of gravity y-axis, and is completely silent with respect to any relationship between a location of the rearmost portion of the golf club head and a direction toeward of the club head center of gravity y-axis.
More specific to the language “a peak crown height of the crown portion is forward of a center-of-gravity of the golf club head”, which is recited in claims 48 and 53 and the language “and a toewardmost portion of the golf club head is forward of a golf club head center-of-gravity X-axis”, which is recited in claims 48 and 54, the applicant has provided a convincing argument that the drawings do provide support for these claimed features (scanned pages 5-6 of the Remarks, received 05/08/2026). Here, the section hereinbelow styled “Specification – Objections” makes reference to the language in claims 48, 53 and 54, noting that the specification should be amended to include supporting language that corresponds to the language in claims 48, 53 and 54. While it is understood that the exact terms of the claims need not be used in haec verba, as argued by the applicant, there should nevertheless be substantial correspondence between the language of the claims and the language of the specification, as per 37 CFR 1.121(e).
In the event the applicant is able to argue and substantiate that the specification also provides support for the language identified hereinbelow in each of claims 21, 37, 47, 51 and 52, it is similarly noted that there should be substantial correspondence between the language of the claims and the language of the specification, as per 37 CFR 1.121(e).
Specification - Objections
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Note the following claimed terms/phrases that are not found in the specification:
Claim 21 – “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of the origin; a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”
Claim 37 – “and at a normal address position a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”;
Claim 47 – “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis”;
Claim 48 – “wherein, at a normal address position: a peak crown height of the crown portion is forward of a center-of-gravity of the golf club head; and a toewardmost portion of the golf club head is forward of a golf club head center-of-gravity X-axis”.
Claim 51 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and
Claim 52 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis”.
Claim 53 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a peak crown height of the crown portion is forward of a center-of-gravity of the golf club head”.
Claim 54 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a toewardmost portion of the golf club head is forward of a golf club head center-of-gravity X-axis”.
Drawings - Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features noted hereinbelow, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note the following features that are currently not depicted in the drawings:
Claim 21 – “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of the origin; a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”;
Claims 21, 32, 37, 41 and 49 – “one or more weights”;
Claim 37 – “and at a normal address position a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”;
Claim 47 – “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis”;
Claim 51 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and
Claim 52 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis”.
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.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-35, 37, 39, 43-44, 47 and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The subject matter detailed hereinbelow is not described anywhere within the originally-filed disclosure of the instant application. Assuming, arguendo, that the applicant is able to substantiate that the disclosure does provide support for the language identified herein, note that there exists an objection to both the specification and to the drawings, as outlined hereinabove, which the applicant must address and respond to. At present, there is no way to determine that the joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the following, claimed subject matter:
Claim 21 – “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of the origin; a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”;
Claims 22-35 and 43 share the deficiency of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a);
Claim 37 – “and at a normal address position a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”;
Claims 39 and 44 share the deficiency of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a);
Claim 47 – “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis”;
Claim 51 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and
Claim 52 – “wherein, at a normal address position, a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis”.
/
/
/
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 21-35, 37, 39, 43-44, 47 and 51-52 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2022/0226709 to Greaney et al (hereinafter referred to as “Greaney”) in view of either USPN 6,572,489 to Miyamoto et al (hereinafter referred to as “Miyamoto”) or USPN 6,048,278 to Meyer et al (hereinafter referred to as “Myer”).
At the outset, it is noted that the effective filing date of claims 21-35, 37, 39, 43-44, 47 and 51-52 is equal to the actual filing date of the instant application, namely October 12, 2023. Here, it has been determined that the language “a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis” and the language “a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis”, is not supported by the originally-filed disclosure of this continuation application and is not supported by any of the prior, parent non-provisional applications identified in the filing receipt dated 10/26/2023. Since the US PUBS associated with the parent application 17/569,810, and identified as US PUBS 2022/0226709, was published July 21, 2022, it qualifies as prior art against the current claims 21-35, 37, 39, 43, 44, 47 and 51-52 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
As to independent claim 21, Greaney shows a golf club head (100), comprising:
a club head body (110) having an external surface with a heel portion (126), a toe portion (128), a crown portion (112), a sole portion (114), a skirt portion (116) positioned around a periphery between the sole portion and crown portion, a ball striking face (122) having a thickness, and a hosel (120) integrally formed with the club head body (110) and extending outward from the club head body (110) proximate to a crown and heel transition region (FIG. 1);
wherein the crown portion has one or more openings, and wherein one or more corresponding crown panels close the one or more openings, the crown panels having a first material density and a first portion thickness (i.e., see paragraph [0060]);
wherein the one or more crown panels comprise carbon fiber (i.e., see paragraph [0060]);
wherein a portion of the club head body located below a geometric center of the ball striking face is formed of a second material having a second material density and a second portion thickness, wherein the second material density is greater than the first material density of the crown panels (i.e., see at least claim 21 of the ’709 publication);
wherein a moment of inertia about a golf club head center-of-gravity x-axis, Ixx, is between 250-800 kg-mm² (i.e., see paragraph [0064]);
wherein the golf club head has a club head volume of at least 250 cm³ and a club head weight of between about 190 and 210 grams (i.e., see paragraph [0069]);
wherein the ball striking face comprises a striking plate attached to the club head body and having a varying thickness of no more than 5 mm, wherein the thickness of the striking plate is greater than the first portion thickness, and at least a portion of the thickness of the striking plate is at least twice the first portion thickness (i.e., see paragraph [0033] along with TABLE 1 and at least claim 21 of the ‘709 publication);
wherein the golf club head has a center of gravity that is below the geometric center of the ball striking face of the golf club head as measured along a z-axis of the golf club head having an origin at the geometric center of the ball striking face (see FIG. 4);
wherein the integrally formed hosel is formed of the second material and the integrally formed hosel comprises a hosel opening that provides access to an interior of the golf club head (i.e., paragraph [0058]);
wherein one or more weights are attached below the crown portion (i.e., paragraphs [0058] and [0059];
wherein the ball striking face has a roll radius less than 300 mm and greater than 100 mm (i.e., paragraphs [0066] – [0068]); and
wherein at a normal address position a rearmost location of the crown portion is below a plane that is parallel to a y-axis of the club head and intersects the geometric center of the ball striking face (FIG. 6).
Greaney does not explicitly disclose the features “at a normal address position, a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of the origin; a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”. Here, each of Miyamoto and Meyer teaches that a rearmost portion of the golf club head may be located toeward of the origin and that a peak crown height of the crown portion may be located toeward of the origin, so that the center of gravity may be relocated towards the toe and wherein the weight of the club head is biased toeward of the origin in order to impart more energy to a struck golf ball. Also, the toeward location of the peak crown height addedly provides a larger hitting face in the toeward region where golf balls tend to hit the strike face. Reference is made to FIG. 10 in Miyamoto, showing the location of the crown peak “C”, located toward of the origin (O, “FC”) and also FIG. 11 in Miyamoto, showing the location of the rearmost portion “B” of the club head, located toeward of the plane passing through the origin (O, “FC”). Also, see TABLE I and col. 3, lines 46-65 in Miyamoto. Reference is made to FIG. 7 in Meyer, showing the location of the rearmost portion (26) of the club head, located toeward of a plane passing through the origin (19) and also FIG. 2 in Meyer, showing the location of the highest vertical point of the face (21), which coincides with a corresponding highest peak location of the top surface or crown (12) and which is offset toward the toe. Also, see col. 3, lines 10-13; col. 3, lines 20-45; col. 4, lines 11-13; and col. 4, lines 21-34 in Meyer. In view of either of the teachings in Miyamoto or Meyer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the club head in Greaney by locating a rearmost portion of the club head toeward of the origin and a peak crown height of the crown portion toeward of the origin in order to relocate the center of gravity to a position toeward of the origin in order to produce a more solid impact for golf balls hit closer to the toe region, and wherein a peak crown portion located toeward of the origin further enlarges the hitting area of the face to facilitate striking a golf ball.
As to claim 22, in Greaney, at least a portion of the crown portion, the sole portion, and the skirt portion are held in place by adhesive bonding (i.e., see paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 23, in Greaney, at least a portion of the ball striking face comprises titanium (i.e., see paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 24, in Greaney, the club head body is formed from a combination of an alloy of aluminum and a composite material (i.e., see paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 25, in Greaney, a portion of the crown is aluminum (i.e., see paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 26, in Greaney, the club head body is formed from a first component comprising an alloy of titanium, a second component comprising an alloy of aluminum, and a third component comprising a composite material (i.e., see paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 27, in Greaney, at least a portion of the crown portion and the skirt portion are held in place by adhesive bonding (i.e., see paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 28, in Greaney, a projection of the center of gravity onto the ball striking face is located off-center from the geometric center in a direction toeward of the origin.
As to claim 29, in Greaney, a projection of the center of gravity onto the ball striking face of the club head body is located off-center from the geometric center in a direction toward the sole portion (FIG. 5).
As to claim 30, in Greaney, the center of gravity is 5-20 mm below the geometric center of the ball striking face of the golf club head as measured along a z-axis of the golf club head having an origin at the geometric center (i.e., see at least claims 28, 38 and 39 of the ‘709 publication).
As to claim 31, in Greaney, the sole portion is at least partially formed of a material that has a density greater than the first material density (i.e., see paragraphs [0057] – [0058]).
As to claim 32, in Greaney, at least one of the one or more weights is formed of a higher density material than the sole portion and the second material density is at least twice the first material density (i.e., see paragraphs [0058] – [0059]).
As to claim 33, in Greaney, the strike plate is held in place by adhesive bonding (i.e., see paragraph [0034]) and the center of gravity of the golf club head is below a plane that is parallel to the y-axis and intersects the rearmost location of the crown portion (FIG. 6).
As to claim 34, in Greaney, a portion of the crown is aluminum (i.e., see paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 35, in Greaney, the club head body is formed from a first component comprising an alloy of titanium, a second component comprising an alloy of aluminum, and a third component comprising a fiber reinforced plastic material, and at least a portion of the crown portion and the skirt portion are held in place by adhesive bonding (i.e., see paragraphs [0034] – [0035]).
As to claim 37 (as dependent upon independent claim 36), Greaney discloses one or more weights are attached below the crown portion (i.e., see paragraphs [0058] – [0059]), the ball striking face has a roll radius less than 300 mm and greater than 100 mm (i.e., see paragraphs [0066] – [0068]). Here again, Greaney does not explicitly detail that “at a normal address position a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the origin”. Note the comments hereinabove under the rejection of claim 21, which are incorporated in this rejection of claim 37, and explain the modification of Greaney in view of Miyamoto or Meyer to include a peak crown height of the crown portion toeward of the origin. As to the remaining limitations in independent claim 36, reference is made to the comments under the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, which are incorporated in this rejection of claim 37, and further noting that Greaney also discloses wherein at least a portion of the crown portion, the sole portion, and the skirt portion are held in place by adhesive bonding (i.e., see paragraph [0034]); wherein the striking plate has a thickness that is at least twice the first portion thickness; wherein the striking plate has a thickness that is at least twice a thickness of the sole portion (i.e., see paragraph [0055] and at least claim 21 of the ‘709 publication).
As to claim 39, as dependent upon claim 37, Greaney shows at least a portion of the ball striking face comprises titanium (i.e., see paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 43, the ball striking face comprises a combination of titanium and a composite material (i.e., see paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 44, as dependent upon claim 39, Greaney shows the sole portion has a thickness that is greater than the first portion thickness and greater than a thickness of the skirt portion (i.e., see paragraph [0055] and at least claim 21 of the ‘709 publication).
As to claim 47 (which depends indirectly from independent claim 41, with intervening claims 42, 45 and 46), Greaney does not explicitly detail “wherein, at a normal address position: a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of the golf club head center-of- gravity y-axis”. Note the comments hereinabove under the rejection of claim 21, which are incorporated in this rejection of claim 47, and explain the modification of Greaney in view of Miyamoto or Meyer to position a rearmost portion of the golf club head toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and to position a peak crown height of the crown portion toeward of the golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis. Here, it is noted that Greaney shows all of the claimed limitations of claims 41-46 and 48. As to the remaining limitations in independent claim 41, reference is made to the comments under the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, which are incorporated in this rejection of claim 47. As to claim 42, see paragraph [0058]. As to claim 45, see paragraphs [0066] – [0068]. As to claim 46, see paragraphs [0035] and FIGS. 4-6.
As to claims 51-52 (which depend directly from independent claim 49), Greaney lacks an explicit disclosure of “at a normal address position, a rearmost portion of the golf club head is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis” (claim 51) and “at a normal address position, a peak crown height of the crown portion is toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis” (claim 52). Note the comments hereinabove under the rejection of claim 21, which are incorporated in this rejection of claims 51-52, and explain the modification of Greaney in view of Miyamoto or Meyer to position a rearmost portion of the golf club head toeward of a golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis; and to position a peak crown height of the crown portion toeward of the golf club head center-of-gravity y-axis. Here, it is noted that Greaney shows all of the claimed limitations of independent claim 49, which are essentially similar to the limitations found in claim 21. Again, see the comments hereinabove with respect to claim 21, which are incorporated in this rejection of claims 51-52.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 38, 40-42, 45-46, 48-50 and 53-54 are allowable over the prior art references of record.
The closest prior art references of record include US PUBS 2006/0019770 to Meyer et al; USPN 7166038 to Williams et al; USPN 5797807 to Moore; US PUBS 2002/0160854 to Beach et al; USPN 7229362 to Tavares; US PUBS 2006/0172820 to Kouno et al; and US PUBS 2005/0209021 to Hoffman et al.
As to independent claims 36 and 41, the arguments advanced by the applicant’s attorney on scanned page 2, line 11 through scanned page 3, line 2, and received with the Remarks of 11/05/2025, are deemed pertinent to this indication of allowable subject matter. In addition, the following arguments advanced by the applicant’s attorney and directed specifically toward independent claims 36 and 41 are deemed pertinent to this indication of allowable subject matter. Specifically, see the arguments on scanned page 4, lines 7-13; scanned page 5, lines 6-14; scanned page 8, lines 16-23; scanned page 9, lines 7-16; scanned page 11, lines 4-11; and scanned page 11, line 23 through scanned page 12, line 3, and received with the Remarks of 05/08/2026.
As to independent claim 49, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest a golf club head including the combination of one or more corresponding crown panels that close one or more openings in the crown portion, wherein the one or more crown panels comprise carbon fiber and wherein the integrally formed hosel comprises a hosel opening that provides access to an interior of the golf club head and further wherein the ball striking face comprises a striking plate attached to the club head body and having a varying thickness of no more than 5 mm, wherein the thickness of the striking plate is greater than the first portion thickness of the crown panels, and at least a portion of the thickness of the striking plate is at least twice the first portion thickness of the crown panels; and wherein the ball striking face has a roll radius less than 300 mm and greater than 100 mm, in further combination with the totality of the all of the remaining limitations required by claim 49.
/
/
/
/
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-Fri.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571)-270-1775. 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.
SEBASTIANO PASSANITI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights