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 § 102
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mizutani et al. 2018/0185710 as set forth in the previous office action.
Conclusion
With respect to claims 1, 7 and 10, applicant argues that Mizutani fails to teach, “wherein the upper hosel component is adhered on top of the upper hosel region,” as claimed. For the purposes of the rejection, the first upper hosel component region P1 to engage a portion of the upper hosel region interior such that it is adhered to the upper hosel region [0044, of spec.] and is considered fairly shown. The listing of elements lacks any clear structural relationships rendering broad interpretation of the claims to read on the art of record.
Narrowly interpreting the claims, Applicant argues that the office action mapping of sleeve 8 of Mizutani to the claimed upper hosel component and the area that “forms an opening at 40” but that the the sleeve of Mizutani does not adhere on top of any part of the body 4 of Mizutani. The term used in the claim of “adhere” does not preclude the method of connecting the components in Mizutani which is most broadly any physical attachment of the elements. The claims do not recite that an “adhesive” is required. To that extent, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Even positively adding the word adhesive to the claim would not appear to be sufficient as the structural relationships in the claim remain broad and unrecited. As noted in his remarks, including engaging member 120 with element 8 to be construed as combined to form the upper hosel component would show the combination of an adhesive being used to meet the limitation of the claims as they are currently recited.
With respect to claim 10, applicant argues that the circumferential sleeve 150 of sleeve 108 of Mizutani is just another embodiment of the circumferential surface 50 of sleeve 8 of Mizutani that does not appear to be a part of the hosel or the body of Mizutani. The argument is unclear where the surfaces 150 are considered part of the first hosel component 8 mapped to the recitations in the claim. Applicant has not shown how any limitation in the claim distinguishes over that interpretation. Further argued is that the same portion of sleeve 8 or sleeve 108 is used to reject two different claim elements. Such is not the case. Instead, two separate figs. 10 and 14 are referred to in the rejection to show how the structures and relationships meet the claim recitations and how such are considered fairly shown. Applicant’s remarks do not show how any limitation or recited relationships in the claim positively distinguishes over the applied art.
Applicant argues that the cylindrical member 20 of head 3 of Mizutani and screw 110 of Mizutani fail to show a, “second hosel component to engage a portion of the upper hosel region interior.” To that extent screw 110 is considered to engage a portion of the upper hosel region interior as recited in the claim. As such, applicant has not shown how such recitations clearly distinguish over the relationships show by the applied art.
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 Nicholas Weiss at (571)270-1775.
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
