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 21is/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 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
Applicant argues Bennett fails to show the limitation using an annotated fig. 64 that is narrowly interpreted against the broader scope of claim 1. Claim one provides no structure of relationship that interprets the first end and second end to be as illustrated. Claim 1 only requires the ends to be “extending outwardly from the middle” as is done in the examiner’s annotated fig. 64 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above in the grounds for rejection.
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