Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/419,603

ADJUSTABLE CLUB HEAD

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 23, 2024
Examiner
GORDEN, RAEANN
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1220 granted / 1469 resolved
+13.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1510
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1469 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 63/481,208, filed January 24, 2023. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications. If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 is redundant. The base claims limits the opening to the bottom of the club head. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Churchward (4,043,563). Claim 1, Churchward discloses a golf club head, comprising a main body defining an opening (23) formed on the bottom surface of the main body; and a slot assembly (21) configured to be received in and detachably couple to the opening (23), wherein the slot assembly (21) comprises a plurality of slots (20), and wherein each of the slots is configured to receive and detachably couple to a weight (22) (fig 3-4). Claim 2, further comprising a fastening mechanism (33) configured to fasten the slot assembly to the main body. Claim 3, the fastening mechanism is a screw (33). Claim 4, the plurality of slots (20) is configured to receive different sized weights (Note, the opening will receive various sizes). Claim 5, the plurality of slots (20) comprises at least a first slot having a first set of dimensions and a second slot having second set of dimensions (fig 4). Claim 7, the slots (20) are distributed along at least a toe end, a heel end, and a center of the main body (fig 3). Claim 9, Churchward discloses a golf club comprising a golf club head comprising a main body defining an opening (23) formed on a bottom surface of the main body; and a slot assembly (21) configured to be received in and detachably couple to the opening (23), wherein the slot assembly (21) comprises a plurality of slots (20), and wherein each of the slots is configured to receive and detachably couple to a weight (22) (fig 3-4). Claim 11, further comprising a fastening mechanism (33) configured to fasten the slot assembly to the main body. Claim 12, the fastening mechanism is a screw (33). Claim 13, the plurality of slots (20) is configured to receive different sized weights (Note, the opening will receive various sizes). Claim 14, the plurality of slots (20) comprises at least a first slot having a first set of dimensions and a second slot having second set of dimensions (fig 4). Claim 15, the opening is formed on a sole surface of the main body. Claim 16, the slots (20) are distributed along at least a toe end, a heel end, and a center of the main body (fig 3). Claim 18, Tunstall discloses a golf club head, comprising a main body defining an opening (23) formed on a bottom surface of the main body; and a slot assembly (21) configured to be received in and detachably couple to the opening (23), wherein the slot assembly (21) comprises a plurality of slots (20), and wherein each of the slots is configured to receive and detachably couple to a weight (22) (fig 3-4). Claim 19, the slots (20) are distributed along at least a toe end, a heel end, and a center of the main body (fig 3). 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) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchward (4,043,563) in view of Tunstall (4,695,054). Churchward does not disclose a putter. Tunstall teaches weights added to a putter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the golf club type for the desired use while playing. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchward (4,043,563) in view of Seiden (4,733,868). Tunstall discloses a shaft, but dot does not disclose a telescoping shaft. Seiden teaches a golf club comprising a telescoping shaft (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the shaft for portability. Conclusion 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 RAEANN GORDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 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 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. /RAEANN GORDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 April 1, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 05, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599819
GOLF CLUB HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594464
GOLF BALLS HAVING AT LEAST ONE RADAR DETECTABLE MARK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594465
GOLF BALLS HAVING INCREASED IMPACT DURABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582876
GOLF BALL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576314
GOLF CLUB HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-5.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1469 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month