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) 1-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Westrum et al. 9,211,451.
As set forth in the previous office action;
“As to claim 1, Westrum shows an iron-type golf club head best in his fig. 35 with considered clearly shown a faceplate; a rear body enclosing a hollow interior cavity, the club head body defining a top rail, a sole, a heel end, a toe end, a front end, a rear end, a top rail periphery, a toe periphery, a heel periphery, and a sole periphery. At his reference number 430 is a sole return extending rearward from the back surface and forming at least a portion of the sole. Fig. 30 I considered to show a toe-side perimeter edge and a sole perimeter edge at 426 and at 420, the rear body is coupled to the faceplate along the faceplate perimeter forming at least a portion of the top rail. A rear body sole portion including a sole ledge coupled to the sole perimeter edge of the faceplate perimeter at 430 and forming at least a portion of the sole is considered shown in fig. 33. The rear body heel portion can be considered coupled to the heel-side perimeter edge of the faceplate perimeter and forming at least a portion of the heel end, the rear body heel portion including a hosel as shown in fig. 30. A rear wall extending from the rear body sole portion to the rear body top rail portion, and between the rear body heel portion to the heel body toe portion, to enclose the rear end of the club head is considered shown at 450 of fig. 36 that has an upper portion thickness that is substantially uniform as shown and a rear wall lower portion with a weight pad 440 coupled to and extending continuously from the rear wall upper portion interior surface at 416 wherein the weight pad forward edge is spaced from the strike face back surface as and a lower interior undercut extending rearwardly from the weight pad forward edge and between the weight pad and the sole ledge as shown in fig. 35, wherein the lower interior undercut defines a gap between the weight pad and the sole return.
Claim 2 can be considered met where a plane can be defined such that the rear wall upper portion interior surface lies in a first plane.
As to claims 3 and 4 a plane can be defined such that the weight pad forward edge upper region lies in a second plane and coplanar with the first plane and such both the upper and lower regions of the weight pad forward edge lie in the second plane as called for in claim 5. As to claim 6, a loft plane on the faceplate can be defined such that it is parallell to the first and second planes.
As to claims 15-19, on is capable of defining the first plane such that it is offset in a perpendicular direction from the loft plane at a distance between 0.200 inches and 0.300 inches or 0.025 inches and 0.075 inches and an angle between the first plane and the second plane to be between 10 degrees and 20 degrees.
As to claims 7 and 8, a second plane is capable of being defined such that it intersects a first plane and defining a faceplate a loft plane such that the first plane is parallel to the loft plane and the second plane intersects the loft plane.
As to claims 9 and 10, a third plane is capable of being defined such that the lower region of the weight pad forward edge lies in it and the second plane intersects the third plane the third plane is parallel to the loft plane.
As to claim 11, between 450 and 416 in fig. 35 is considered shown a shelf surface bordering an upper end of the weight pad, the shelf surface extending substantially perpendicular to the rear wall upper portion exterior surface.
416 is considered the back face as called for in claim 12.
As to claim 20, the rear wall upper portion interior surface at 450 of fig. 35 can be defined such that it covers between 55% and 65% of the rear wall interior surface.”
With respect to Westrum, applicant argues he does not teach, “a rear wall that extends from the sole portion to the top rail portion and between the heel portion and the toe portion to enclose the rear end of the club head. Applicant argues that 450 of Westrum relies on two separate components those portions of the rear body and enclose the club head. Applicant’s remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claim limitation. Such does not preclude two or more components or elements making up the “rear wall” the only structure with respect to the rear wall is that such extend from the sole to the top rail portion. Where elements 416 and 450 in fig. 35 make up a rear wall, those limitations are considered clearly met. As such, applicant fails to show how the limitations as recited clearly distinguish over the applied art and no error is found in the grounds for rejection.
Applicant further argues without and substantiation that hollow-body irons that include a unitary rear body and rear wall are structurally and functionally distinct from capped-back iron constructions. Further such is formed is not directed to any limitations in the claims. As such, the grounds for rejection contains no error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westrum.
As set forth in the previous office action;
“As to claims 13-and 14, while Westrum inherently has a thickness to his upper wall, he does not disclose it. To have selected between 0.025 inches and 0.060 inches would have been obvious in order to meet the desired strength and weight requirements of the club head. n Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”
Applicant repeats his arguments with respect to claim 1 above and such is found not persuasive as previously set forth.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as set forth above in teach grounds for rejection.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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