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 § 102
Claim(s) 1-7 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bennett et al. 10,843,046 as set forth in the previous office action;
As set forth in the previous office action;
“As to claims 1, 6 and 7, Bennett shows a golf club head with a hollow body clearly anticipating the commonly found features recited. In fig. 66, a recess 1102 is located on the sole extending inwardly toward an interior being defined by one or more sidewalls. 11046 is an insert capable of adding a symmetrical weight configured to insert into the recess and the opening and having a first and second end extending outwardly from the middle portion in a toe-to-heel direction wherein a distance between the ball-striking face is greater than a distance between the ball-striking face and the middle portion1.
Element 1106 is considered a protrusion extending from an inner-facing surface of the insert body and extending at least partially into the opening as called for by claim 2 and comprises a lip at 1108 configured to abut one or more surfaces of a sidewall of the opening to thereby retain the weighted insert within the opening as called for by claim 3.
Where the protrusion of the weighted insert is made of rubber (col. 24, ln. 31) claim 4’s requirement of a resiliently deformable material is considered met. Where the open “comprises” language of claim 5 by the broadest reasonable interpretation only require the prior art to show none material listed, such is considered met by the disclosure of thermoplastic polymers at ln. 32.
Claim 1 has been amended and new claim 21 presented to recite, “wherein at least one of a distance between the ball-striking face and the first end or a distance between the ball- striking face and the second end is greater than a distance between the ball-striking face and a rearmost edge of the middle portion." Where the weight insert of Bennett is shown to be curved as in the annotated fig. 64 below, such an insert shape fails to distinguish over the applied art;”
PNG
media_image1.png
596
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“The claims have been amended to now recite, “a first wing extending outwardly from the middle portion in a direction that extends at least partially in the toe-to-heel direction and at least partially in a front- to-rear direction; and a second wing extending outwardly from the middle portion in a direction that extends at least partially in the heel-to-toe direction and at least partially in the front-to-rear direction.” However, such is done broadly without any specificity as to the structure or shape limiting the interpretation of which elements in the prior art are capable of being designated as a “wing”. Applicant’s narrow interpretation of his intent of his annotated Fig. 16 noted but not read imported into any meaning of the scope of the claim. Instead, a “wing” is merely descriptive where the curved forward and rear ends of his groove and insert are capable of being called “wings”. By its broadest ordinary definition, a wing is nothing more than a part of a larger body or part of a main structure. To that, Bennett can be interpreted to meet the limitations of the claim as set forth in the annotated drawing below where the wings are “extending outwardly from the middle portion”;
PNG
media_image2.png
560
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 22 and 23, the forwardmost portion of the wing is not defined and may be selected in Bennett as shown in the annotated drawing above to satisfy the structural relationships recited in those claims. As such, they fail to clearly distinguish over the applied art. “
Conclusion
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/30*26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above in the grounds for rejection.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 applicant merely disagrees with characterization of the cited references and offers his own narrower interpretation in an annotated fig. 6 of Bennett. and the application of the cited reference to the claims. His amendments to the claims do no provide sufficient structural limitations to the “wings” or “rearmost part” to distinguish over the applied art. Applicant’s annotated drawing is merely an additional interpretation at to the breadth of the limitation that fails to show how the interpretation set forth in the previous office action is in error.
Applicant asserts that Bennett merely discloses a flexure of continuous shape with no wings whatsoever. The examiner disagrees since “wings” is broadly descriptive at best and have been recited in the claims with respect to no structural limitations as to their shape or construction. As such, the rounded corners of Bennett as shown in the previous office action can be broadly described and dubbed as “wings” and there are no limitations in the claims that preclude such an interpretation.
Similarly, where claim 1 recites that first and second wings "extend from the rearmost portion" of the middle portion, such a rearmost port is recited absent of any further structures or relationship. Where the rearmost portion is broadly interpreted as set forth in the previous office action, Bennett meets this limitation. Applicant argues that his middle portion is clearly defined in both the Specification and the claims. First the claims are only read in light of the specification. The middle portion is given no explicit definition and is discussed at [000] as and portion “disposed between the first end and the second end”. The middle portion of Bennett shown the previous office action meets this broad description of a middle portion. Similarly, the claim only requires that the middle portion be, “disposed between the first end and the second end” that extend outwardly in a heel-to-toe direction. Such lack of structure and breadth is considered fairly shown by the interpretation of Bennett in the previous office action. As such, the grounds for rejection is not considered to be in error and remains.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Melba Bumgarner at (571)272-4709.
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