DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communication received 05/14/2026 – Election, and Amendment to the claims.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-26 remain pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-26 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 05/14/2026. In the reply, the applicant requests reconsideration of the restriction of Group I and Group II in light of the amendment that accompanies the 05/14/2026 election. The applicant argues that the guidance in MPEP §806.05(c), as it pertains to combination/subcombination, no longer applies, as the claims no longer have separate utility.
IN RESPONSE:
Applicant’s arguments to the restriction between Group I and Group II (i.e., respectively corresponding to Invention I and Invention II in the restriction) has been considered. Claims 1-20 will be examined on the merits. Since the applicant has not pointed to any supposed errors in the restriction requirement associated with Inventions III and IV, the restriction of the Groups III and IV identified by the applicant, which correspond to Inventions III and IV in the restriction, respectively, STANDS, for the reasons set forth in the restriction requirement, mailed 03/25/2026. Claims 21-26 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/12/2024.
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 “meshed face joint” (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that paragraph [0077] of the specification described the face, meshed alternating tooth structure as “(not shown)” No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because FIGS. 4, 5, 14A, 14B and 14C lack any numerals whatsoever to be able to understand what parts(s) are being shown.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Copies of the Non-Patent Literature Documents have not been supplied. Moreover, the information disclosure statement filed 02/12/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the Non-patent Literature Documents have not been properly identified, as required by 37 CFR 1.98(b). See MPEP 609 stating:
“For publications obtained from the internet, the uniform resource locator (URL) of the webpage that is the source of the publication must be provided for the place of publication (e.g., "www.uspto.gov"). The publisher may be evident from the URL of the webpage. See MPEP § 707.05(e) for examples on listing documents retrieved from the internet, including social media posts and screen shots from videos. In particular, see examples 17 and 18. Further, for an internet publication obtained from a website that archives webpages, both the URL of the archived webpage submitted for consideration and the URL of the website from which the archived copy of the webpage was obtained should be provided on the document listing (e.g., "Hand Tools," webpage <http://www.farmshopstore.com/handtools.html>, 1 page, August 18, 2009, retrieved from Internet Archive Wayback Machine <http://web.archive.org/web/20090818144217/ http://www.farmshopstore.com/handtools.html> on December 20, 2012). Where the actual publication date of a non-patent document is not known, the applicant must, at a minimum, provide a date of retrieval (e.g., the date a webpage was retrieved) or a time frame (e.g., a year, a month and year, a certain period of time ) when the document was available as a publication.”
The 02/12/2024 IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein, as it pertains to the non-patent literature documents, has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
In addition, the IDS, received 07/08/2024, repeats the citations of the U.S. Patent Documents already cited on the earlier-filed 02/12/2024 IDS. In order to prevent any duplicate printing or other post allowance processing delays should the application be allowed, the U.S. Patent Documents on the later-filed 07/08/2024 IDS have been lined-through.
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: The “third mating member” recited in claim 11 lacks proper antecedent basis in the specification. The “first mating shaft member” and the “second mating shaft member” (i.e., see claims 13-14 and 19) lack proper antecedent basis in the specification.
The specification is objected to for presenting inconsistent references to the numbered elements throughout the text. 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112. By way of example only, the specification mentions a female shaft joint piece 31, a joint connection 31 and a female end stop 31 (see paragraphs [0065], [0067] and [0069] of the corresponding published application US PUBS 2024/0270888). By way of another example, the specification refers to putter end stops 36, a hosel joint member 36, and a putter adapter 36 (see paragraphs [0065] and [0067] of the corresponding published application US PUBS 2024/0278088). In another example, the specification mentions a shaft adapter 13 as well as a shaft 13 and a shaft 10 (see paragraph [0063] of the corresponding published application US PUBS 2024/0278088).
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
As to claim 1, lines 7-8, neither the orientation of the claimed “separate plane” nor the existence of separate planes has been defined (i.e., a first plane associated with the dominant hosel tip and a second plane, different from the first plane, for the subordinate hosel tip have not been positively defined).
As to claim 2, the claim calls for “a putter adapter” and it appears that this putter adapter is positively recited. However, the preamble to claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, is directed to “[A]n adjustable hosel insert”. Thus, it is not clear what exactly the scope of the claim is. Perhaps the adjustable dominant hosel tip recited in claim 2 is configured to rotationally engage with corresponding adjustment members in a putter adaptor.
As to claim 3, here again, it is not clear if the putter adaptor is intended to be positively recited, given the comments set forth under claim 2 hereinabove.
As to claim 4, “the putter head” lacks proper antecedent basis. Moreover, it is not clear if the applicant intends to positively recite the putter head or merely incorporate the putter head within a functional phrase. In addition, it is noted that claim 1 only accounts for a “golf putter” and not a putter head.
As to claim 5, line 3, is “the dominant hosel rotation joint” referring to the same rotation joint already recited in claim 3? The language in claim 3 should be modified to provide proper antecedent basis for a dominant hosel rotation joint.
As to claim 6, the claim calls for “a golf club putter head” and it appears that this golf club putter head is positively recited. However, the preamble to claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, is directed to “[A]n adjustable hosel insert”. Thus, it is not clear what exactly the scope of the claim is. Perhaps the subordinate hosel tip is configured to engage with corresponding adjustment members in a golf club putter head.
As to claim 7, the claim calls for “a golf shaft member” and it appears that this golf shaft member is positively recited. However, the preamble to claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, is directed to “[A]n adjustable hosel insert”. Thus, it is not clear what exactly the scope of the claim is. Perhaps the subordinate hosel tip is configured to form a rotation joint with a golf club shaft member.
As to claim 8, this claim shares the indefiniteness of claim 1.
As to claim 9, lines 2-3, if the intent is to claim a dominant hosel tip along with a subordinate hosel tip, then the claim should clearly recite --having a dominant hosel tip and a subordinate hosel tip--. In line 7, “the hosel” lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 5, there is no way to understand exactly what “a first mating member” is referring to. The specification does not elaborate on the structure of any first mating member “mounted on the dominant hosel tip”. Rather, the specification focuses on a female shaft joint piece 31, a joint connection 31, female end stop 31 and shaft groove members or stops 33. What exactly is the first mating member referring to? In line 6, neither the orientation of the claimed “separate plane” nor the existence of separate planes has been defined (i.e., a first plane associated with the dominant hosel tip and a second plane, different from the first plane, for the subordinate hosel tip have not been positively defined).
As to claim 10, here again, there is no way to understand what a “first mating member” is referring to. Moreover, there is no way to understand what “a second mating member” is referring to . The specification does not elaborate on the structure of any second mating member “mounted on a putter adapter”. Rather, the specification focuses on putter end stops 36, hosel joint member 36, and putter adapter 36. What exactly is the second mating member referring to?
As to claim 11, note the comments related to the second mating member, as outlined under claim 10, hereinabove. What exactly is the “third mating member”. The specification provides no guidance whatsoever in understanding the meaning of this phrase. What exactly is this recitation referring to?
As to claim 12, note the comments related to the first mating member, as outlined under claim 9, hereinabove.
As to claims 13-14, these claims selectively recite a “first mating shaft member” as well as a “second mating shaft member”. The specification provides no guidance whatsoever in understanding the meaning of these phrases. What exactly are these recitations referring to?
As to claim 15, this claim shares the indefiniteness of claim 9.
As to claims 16-18, see the comments hereinabove under claims 9 and 10 with respect to the “first mating member” and the “second mating member”.
As to claim 19, line 3, if the intent is to claim a dominant hosel tip along with a subordinate hosel tip, then the claim should clearly recite --having a dominant hosel tip and a subordinate hosel tip--. Also, see the comments hereinabove under claims 9 and 10 with respect to the “first mating member” and the “second mating member”. In lines 6-7, it is not understood how the hosel is “disposed between the dominant hosel tip and the subordinate hosel tip”. The hosel has been defined in lines 3-4 as being an adjustable hosel insert having a dominant and a subordinate hosel tip. Is there a specific part or portion of the hosel insert that is between the dominant and subordinate hosel tips (i.e., note that claim 1 requires an “angled hosel run”; note that claim 9 requires “the hosel angularly disposed”). In line 11, “positioned opposite the shaft” is not understood. Perhaps this phrase should simply be deleted. Also, in line 12, “the first shaft mating member of the shaft adapter” (emphasis added) lacks proper antecedent basis. The first shaft mating member has been recited as being a part of the subordinate hosel tip. Clarification is required. In line 14, neither the orientation of the claimed “separate plane” nor the existence of separate planes has been defined (i.e., a first plane associated with the dominant hosel tip and a second plane, different from the first plane, for the subordinate hosel tip have not been positively defined).
As to claim 20, there is no way to understand the directions of the extent of the hosel both horizontally and vertically without a clearer and more distinct recitation of how the dominant hosel tip and the subordinate hosel tip are oriented with respect to a reference axis or ground plane or some other portion of the putter club assembly.
The Office has made every effort to identify all remaining instances of indefiniteness in the current claim set. To the extent that any remaining occurrences of indefiniteness may exist in the claims, the applicant is respectfully asked to thoroughly review the claims and to amend the claims to capture and to correct any remaining instances of indefiniteness of which the applicant may become aware of during the preparation of a response to this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 5,137,275 to Nelson.
Reference is made to the annotated version of FIG. 8 of Nelson, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
636
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Nelson shows an adjustable hosel insert for a golf club, comprising: an adjustable dominant hosel tip for a golf putter (Abstract), having incremental adjustment members (i.e., the threaded pattern 110 within the identified dominant hosel tip serve as the claimed “incremental adjustment members”); the adjustable dominant hosel tip oriented in spaced parallel relationship to a subordinate hosel tip; an angled hosel run (i.e., angled at 90 degrees with respect to each of the dominant hosel tip and to the subordinate hosel tip) disposed between the adjustable dominant hosel tip and the subordinate hosel tip; and the adjustable dominant hosel tip oriented in a separate plane from the subordinate hosel tip (i.e., see FIG. 5).
As to claim 2, the adjustable dominant hosel tip rotationally engages with corresponding adjustment members (i.e., the threads on screw 125 serve as “adjustment members”) in a putter adapter (i.e., screw 125 is a putter adapter, as broadly as claimed).
As to claim 3, the adjustable dominant hosel tip identified hereinabove in Nelson and the putter adapter (i.e., the screw 125) form a rotation joint therebetween (i.e., the dominant hosel tip is rotationally engaged with the screw 125 through the mating thread arrangement).
As to claim 4, it is clear that rotation of the dominant hosel tip identified hereinabove changes a physical location of the subordinate hosel tip relative to the putter head. Depending upon where the dominant hosel tip is located and tightened into place identifies the final location of the identified subordinate hosel tip.
As to claim 5, since the subordinate hosel tip and the dominant hosel tip identified hereinabove are connected via the angled hosel run, it is clear that the subordinate hosel tip may be rotated radially around the dominant hosel tip as rotational adjustments are made to the dominant hosel rotation joint (i.e., as the dominant hosel tip is rotated into place as a connection is made with threads 104, the subordinate hosel tip also rotates).
As to claim 6, the adjustable dominant hosel tip rotationally engages with corresponding adjustment members in a golf club putter head (i.e., in another interpretation, the screw 125 is in a golf club putter head and the dominant hosel tip interacts with the threads 104 of the screw 125; the threads 104 are “corresponding adjustment members”).
As to claim 7, the identified subordinate hosel tip and a golf club shaft (14) member form a rotation joint therebetween.
As to claim 8, the identified angled hosel run forms an angled connection with the subordinate hosel tip and the dominant hosel tip (i.e., angled at 90 degrees with respect to each of the dominant hosel tip and to the subordinate hosel tip).
As to claim 9, Nelson shows a putter club assembly (FIG. 1) having a shaft (14), hosel (FIGS. 1, 5, and 8) and putter head (12), comprising: the hosel comprising an adjustable hosel insert having a dominant and a subordinate hosel tip (i.e., identified in the annotated FIG. 8, hereinabove); the putter head (12) adjustably engaged with the dominant hosel tip whereby the dominant hosel tip has a first mating member (i.e., threads 110) mounted on the dominant hosel tip; the dominant hosel tip oriented in a separate plane from the subordinate hosel tip with the subordinate hosel tip positioned opposite the dominant hosel tip and the hosel angularly disposed between the dominant hosel tip and the subordinate hosel tip (i.e., angled at 90 degrees with respect to each of the dominant hosel tip and to the subordinate hosel tip); and the subordinate hosel tip secured to the shaft (14) of the putter club (FIGS. 1 and 5).
As to claim 10, the first mating member (i.e., threads 110) of the dominant hosel tip is mechanically engaged with a corresponding second mating member (i.e., the threads that are a part of screw 125) mounted on a putter adapter (i.e., screw 125 may serve as the “putter adapter”, as broadly as claimed).
As to claim 11, the cap portion of the screw (125) may serve as the claimed “third mating member”, as broadly as claimed, as this part mates with the aperture (106) in the putter head.
As to claim 12, given another interpretation, an adjustable hosel insert securing member (i.e., screw 125) is insertable through the dominant hosel tip and threadedly engaged with the first mating member (i.e., the threads 110).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art.
"[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of 'the inferences and creative steps,' or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.
The Federal Circuit’s directive in Ball Aerosol was addressed to a lower court, but it applies to Office personnel as well. When setting forth a rejection, Office personnel are to continue to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP § 2141 and § 2143, and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This requirement for explanation remains even in situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on intangible realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity.
I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(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;
(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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,137,275 to Nelson in view of US PUBS 2002/0198060 to Fisher.
As to claim 15, Nelson lacks “wherein the putter head includes a detachable putter face”.
Fisher shows it to be old in the art to provide a putter head with a face insert in order to customize the rebound and hardness characteristics of the striking face for enhanced ball control (i.e., see paragraph [0035]). In view of the teaching in Fisher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the putter head in Nelson by incorporating a face insert, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that having a face insert would have enabled the skilled artisan to more particularly style the striking face (e.g., provide a change in the material makeup and/or the striking face texture) such that that overall performance of the striking face would have been improved.
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,137,275 to Nelson in view of the combined teachings of US PUBS 2008/0153621 to Rollinson et al (hereinafter referred to as “Rollinson”) and US PUBS 2015/0182815 to Boggs et al (hereinafter referred to as “Boggs”).
As to claims 16-18, Nelson lacks “male and female rotation joints” (claim 16); “a flush joint” (claim 17); and “a meshed face joint” (claim 18). Rollinson, at paragraph [0030], teaches that a hosel and its associated parts may be attached to a shaft and to a putter head using adhesive or a mechanical bonding process (e.g., screws). Boggs similarly teaches that any one of a variety of mechanical connectors may be used to connect the head to a hosel and shaft assembly and notes that the mechanical connectors are applicable to putter golf club heads (i.e., see paragraphs [0105] and [0109]). In view of the combined teachings in Rollinson and Boggs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the putter club head in Nelson to use any convenient mechanical expedient such as a male/female rotation joint, or a flush joint or a meshed face joint, the motivation being to securely attach the hosel insert in a releasable manner and to secure the hosel such that the putter club head exhibits and maintains a specific lie subsequent to assembly. The use of any of the claimed male/female rotation joint, or a flush joint or a meshed face joint is deemed to be an obvious design choice in the selection of a mechanical expedient for connecting and maintaining parts in a preselected orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-14 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Since claims 13-14 and 19-20 may require extensive revision to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), a complete statement of reasons for allowance will be prepared when all of the rejections of record are overcome.
Further References of Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See FIG. 1 in Redkey;
Note FIG. 2 in Tuber;
See FIGS. 2, 6 and 7 in Lapuz;
FIG. 1 in Holtzman;
FIG. 1B in Becktor;
FIG. 12A in Hebreo;
See indexed notches (64) in FIG. 2 in Burch (‘882);
Note FIGS. 7 and 19-20 in Wang;
See FIG. 3 in Cameron (‘990);
See FIGS. 4-5 in Cameron (‘695);
See FIG. 1 in Burch (‘899);
Note FIG. 1 in Pamias;
See FIGS. 3-4 in Mills;
Note FIG. 17 in Bothwell;
KR-2170188-B1 discloses a hosel connection to a putter head; and
FIGS. 1a, 1b in Chou.
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