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 § 103
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2007/0265107) in view of JP 4015541 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a club head having a body 21 and striking face 22 wherein the two components are welded together to form an enclosed interior (See Figure 2B). The club head includes a top, bottom, heel, toe, and back end. The strike face has a front and back side. Wang et al. does not disclose the materials of the strike face and body, the specific gravity ratio of the strike face and body, or the strike face having a recess and first and second supports. JP 4015541 B2 discloses a club head having a strike face 2A having a recess 4 (See Figures 4 and 5). The strike face further includes a first support 7a near a top and a second support 7b near a bottom for supporting the strike face to the body (See Figures 4 and 5A). JP 4015541 B2 discloses that the recess improves bending of the strike face. Figures 3 and 4 also show the recess being offset from the back side of the strike face. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a recess in the strike face, as taught by JP 4015541 B2, in order to improve the bending of the strike face when struck. One having ordinary skill in the art would have also found it obvious to have first and second supports on the strike face, as taught by JP 4015541 B2, in order to support the strike face onto the body such that the recess is unsupported. It should also be noted that JP
4015541 B2 discloses the strike face 2A made of titanium having a second specific
gravity and the body 2B made of stainless steel having a first specific gravity (See
Paragraph 0002 and 0015). Titanium has a density of 4.5 g/cm3 and stainless steel has
a density of 7.8 g/cm3. Since the specific gravity is the density of the material divided
by the density of water, which is 1, the density and the specific gravity are the same
value. This results in a ratio of the body to the strike face specific gravities being 1.75.
JP 4015541 B2 also notes that the material selection moves the weight to the peripheral
of the strike face (See Paragraph 0015). One having ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to have a specific gravity ratio of 1.7, as taught by JP 4015541 B2, in
order to move the weight of the club head to the perimeter in order to assist in the bending of the strike face.
Regarding claim 2, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. shows the cross-sectional area of the enclosed interior volume varying with position from top to bottom (See Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. shows the body having a front end opposite the back end wherein the strike face defines a portion of the front end and is trapezoidal in shape (See Figures 2B and 2C).
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al. discloses the strike face having a plurality of grooves (See Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 7, JP 4015541 B2 discloses the strike face abutting the back end only along the first and second supports for allowing the bending of the strike face when being hit (See Figure 5A).
Claim(s) 8-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2007/0265107) in view of JP 4015541 B2 and Doi et al. (JP 2014-195584 A).
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al. discloses a club head having a body 21 and striking face 22 wherein the two components are welded together to form an enclosed interior (See Figure 2B). The club head includes a top, bottom, heel, toe, and back end. The strike face has a front and back side. Wang et al. does not disclose the materials of the strike face and body, the specific gravity ratio of the strike face and body, or the strike face having a recess, first and second supports, and a cavity offset from the back end of the body. JP 4015541 B2 discloses a club head having a strike face 2A having a recess 4 (See Figures 4 and 5). The strike face further includes a first support 7a near a top and a second support 7b near a bottom for supporting the strike face to the body (See Figures 4 and 5A). JP 4015541 B2 discloses that the recess improves bending of the strike face. Figures 3 and 4 also show the recess being offset from the back side of the strike face. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a recess in the strike face, as taught by JP 4015541 B2, in order to improve the bending of the strike face when struck. One having ordinary skill in the art would have also found it obvious to have first and second supports on the strike face, as taught by JP 4015541 B2, in order to support the strike face onto the body such that the recess is unsupported. It should also be noted that JP 4015541 B2 discloses the strike face 2A made of titanium having a second specific gravity and the body 2B made of stainless steel having a first specific gravity (See Paragraph 0002 and 0015). Titanium has a density of 4.5 g/cm3 and stainless steel has a density of 7.8 g/cm3. Since the specific gravity is the density of the material divided by the density of water, which is 1, the density and the specific gravity are the same value. This results in a ratio of the body to the strike face specific gravities being 1.75. JP 4015541 B2 also notes that the material selection moves the weight to the peripheral of the strike face (See Paragraph 0015). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a specific gravity ratio of 1.7, as taught by JP 4015541 B2, in order to move the weight of the club head to the perimeter in order to assist in the bending of the strike face. Doi et al. discloses club head having a cavity 8 in the back of the club head that is offset from the back end of the body (See Figures 1-3 and 5). Doi et al. notes that the cavity helps reduce the restitution coefficients within the ball hitting face (See Abstract). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a cavity offset from the back end of the body, as taught by Doi et al., in order to reduce the restitution of the striking face.
Regarding claim 9, see the above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, see the above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. discloses the top of the strike face and the bottom of the strike face supported by the body (See Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 12, based on the shape of the strike face, the cross-sectional area of the cavity would vary with the position from heel to toe (See Figure 5A).
Regarding claim 13, Doi et al. discloses the cavity in various positions being rectangular in shape and having a constant cross-sectional area (See Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. discloses the club head being an iron-type.
Regarding claim 15, JP 4015541 B2 discloses the strike face abutting the back end only along the first and second supports for allowing the bending of the strike face when being hit (See Figure 5A).
Regarding claim 17, Wang et al. shows the body having a front end opposite the back end wherein the strike face defines a portion of the front end and is trapezoidal in shape (See Figures 2B and 2C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1-15 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to claim 1, applicant has amended the claim to recite that the recess is offset from the back side of the striking face. Though this introduces a new issue, JP 4015541 show the recess being offset from the back side of the striking face. In light of this finding, the above rejection has been furnished.
With respect to claim 16, after further search, JP 2014-195584 was found to meet the limitation. Based on the finding, the above rejection has been furnished.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN A HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4411. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4463. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ALVIN A HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights