DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication received:
09/12/2023 – application papers received, including power of attorney, IDS and miscellaneous paper styled “Rescission of any Prior Disclaimers and Request to Revisit Art”;
09/25/2023 – Application Data Sheet; and
10/03/2023 – Application Data Sheet (two copies).
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 .
Continuation Data
Receipt is acknowledged of the corrected Application Data Sheet, received 09/25/2023, as well as the corrected Application Data Sheet (two copies), received 10/03/2023. Despite the listing of related applications provided by the applicant on the first page of the specification, the applicant is reminded that the Filing Receipt of record, dated 09/25/2023, only shows that this application is a DIV of 17/138,618 12/30/2020 PAT 11794080, with no further reference to other related applications.
The applicant should verify the accuracy of the data presented in the Filing Receipt currently of record and, if an error is noted on the Filing Receipt, the applicant should submit a written request for a corrected Filing Receipt. Questions related to the Filing Receipt should be directed to the Office of Data Management, Application Assistance Unit, at (571) 272-4000 or (571) 272-4200 or 1-800-786-0101.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/12/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/12/2023 contains a document identified as Cite No. 15, with a U.S. Patent Document No. 5,136,298, with a Publication Date of 1992-08-04 and an Assignee named “AM Sensor, Inc.”. The information listed on the IDS matches the PTO records for this USPN. However, this patent is directed towards “Microwave Range Detector System”. The significance of this patent to the claimed invention is not understood. Since the IDS information matches the PTO records, this document has been “considered” to the extent that the Document Number, the Publication Date and the Assignee listed are correct.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement with respect to the items discussed herein above 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).
Specification – Objection
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract does not include any reference to the process or method steps, the subject of which forms a portion of the current claim set. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Essentially, the applicant’s disclosure makes a brief reference to the method of manufacturing a golf club head in each of paragraphs [0018] and [0247], reproduced below for the convenience of the applicant, along with providing a flowchart of the method steps in FIG. 67, reproduced hereinbelow.
“[0018] An additional non-limiting embodiment of the present technology includes a method of manufacturing a golf club head including identifying a target coefficient of restitution value for the golf club head; choosing an appropriate deformable member and adjustment driver for the golf club head to reach the target coefficient of restitution value; installing the appropriate deformable member and adjustment driver into the golf club head through an aperture formed in a back portion of the golf club head, wherein the deformable member abuts a rear surface of the striking face of the golf club head.”
“[0247] One method of utilizing the embodiments described herein is outlined in FIG. 67. During construction of the golf club head 800, one can identify a target coefficient of restitution of the golf club head 1211, then they can choose appropriate deformable member configuration to reach the target coefficient of restitution value 1212, then they can install the chosen deformable member configuration into the golf club head 1213, then they can optionally test the coefficient of restitution of the golf club head and modify the deformable member configuration if necessary 1214, then they can optionally repeat the prior step as necessary 1215. Alternatively, rather than utilizing coefficient of restitution as a measurement and target value for the golf club head, the characteristic time can be utilized, which is analogous to the coefficient of restitution and easier to measure.”
PNG
media_image1.png
504
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With the above passages and drawing being the only explanation of the method of manufacturing a golf club head, there is no way to determine exactly how a target coefficient of restitution of the golf club head is to be identified. Exactly what parameters is a person supposed to use or rely on to come up with a “target coefficient of restitution”? Is the target coefficient of restitution selected randomly? Or is the selection of a target coefficient of restitution based upon a player’s performance with a known coefficient of restitution that is a part of a club head that a golfer has already used? Moreover, there is no way to understand exactly what an “appropriate” deformable member is. Further, how is the coefficient of restitution supposed to be tested? There are no details of any specific steps, parameters or equipment used for evaluating the coefficient of restitution. In addition, how does the spacer recited in claim 4 serve to “meet said target coefficient of restitution value”? There is no explanation provided explaining the effect of the spacer as applied to the claimed method.
/
/
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-6 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, line 2, there is no way to understand what a “target” coefficient of restitution is referring to. In lines 5-8, the structure of the club head is implied rather than definitively set forth, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For instance, that an aperture is formed in a back portion of the golf club head implies that the golf club head includes an interior portion or cavity that is accessible through a hole or opening or, in this case, an aperture. Moreover, the fact that the deformable member abuts a rear surface implies that the rear surface of the golf club head is in communication with any interior portion or cavity, yet this relationship has not been set forth in a definite manner.
As to claim 2, this claim shares the indefiniteness of claim 1.
As to claim 3, what exactly is an “alternative” deformable member?
As to claim 4, this claim shares the indefiniteness of claim 2 (as dependent upon independent claim 1).
As to claim 5, this claim shares the indefiniteness of claim 1. Also, it is not clear if the step of deforming the deformable member is what is creating the greater diameter of the deformable member as compared to the diameter of the aperture. Or, does the deformable member already include a diameter that is larger than the diameter of the aperture even prior to deforming and installing the deformable member into the club head?
As to claim 6, this claim shares the indefiniteness of claim 3 (as dependent upon claim 2, which depends from claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Here, claim 6 depends from claim 3, which depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1. Note that claim 2 already requires “further comprising testing the coefficient of restitution value of said golf club head”. Claim 6 requires the exact same limitation and thus does not further limit the subject matter of the preceding claim(s). Note that the method steps are not identified through any numerical arrangement or alphabetical order and thus the steps included within dependent claim 6 include all of the steps already set forth in prior claims 1, 2 and 3. Perhaps the applicant intended to recite that after choosing an alternative deformable member or adjustment driver, the coefficient of restitution value of the golf club head is again tested (i.e., a different or second test is performed).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
"[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.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(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;
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,586,948 to Mick in view of US PUBS 2019/0209904 to Motokawa et al (hereinafter referred to as “Motokawa”) and also in view of US PUBS 2012/0289358 to Oldknow et al (hereinafter referred to as “Oldknow”).
As to claims 1 and 3, Mick discloses a golf club head (16) with an aperture (44) through which a deformable member (36) is introduced (i.e., as the polyurethane is introduced within the cavity, the material is heated and cured and is thus deformed), with the deformable member (36) abutting a rear surface of the striking face (18), as shown in FIGS. 3-4. Mick further includes an adjustment driver (i.e., a threaded brass plug). However, Mick does not explicitly detail the method steps of “identifying a target coefficient of restitution” and “choosing an appropriate deformable member”. Motokawa teaches designing a golf club head may comprise the steps of 1) an expected or target coefficient of restitution is recognized, 2) a prototype club head is selected and the coefficient of restitution is measured or simulated, 3) modifications are made to the prototype club head and 4) another expected coefficient of restitution is calculated (i.e, see paragraphs [0037], [0041] and [0048], along with FIG. 7). While Motokawa teaches that an appropriate modification to the club head is made to effectuate a change in the coefficient of restitution, Motokawa does not specifically discuss that an appropriate deformable member is selected, as required by claim 1, or that an alternative deformable member may be selected to provide a change in the coefficient of restitution, as further required by claim 3. Here, Oldknow teaches one or more of a variety of different materials may be selected and fitted within a cavity and abutting a rear surface of the striking portion of a golf club head. The material(s) may be introduced as part of the club head assembly in order to change the coefficient of restitution (i.e., see paragraphs [0087] – [0088]). In view of the teaching in Motokawa, coupled with the additional teaching in Oldknow, 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 club head in Mick by identifying a target coefficient of restitution and selecting a suitable deformable member or selecting an alternative deformable member that meets the target coefficient of restitution, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that altering the coefficient of restitution of the club head with the introduction of a specific deformable member would have altered the ball striking characteristics of the club head (e.g., higher coefficient or restitution would have increased ball speed upon impact), with the goal being to enable the skilled artisan to select a deformable member that maximizes the performance of the club head.
As to claims 2 and 6, note that Motokawa shows it to be obvious to use appropriate testing procedures to generate information about the coefficient of restitution (i.e., again, see paragraphs [0037], [0041] and [0048]). It is also noted that Mick already teaches that testing is employed to evaluate the performance of a club head that is fitted with a particular polyurethane material (i.e., col. 3, line 63 through col. 4, line 7). With the combined teachings of Mick and Motokawa, 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 device in Mick by testing the coefficient of restitution value, as required by claims 2 and 6, as periodic testing would have enabled the club head designer to measure and track the coefficient of restitution as the deformable member is adjusted (i.e., replaced or otherwise altered).
/
/
/
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,586,948 to Mick in view of US PUBS 2019/0209904 to Motokawa et al (hereinafter referred to as “Motokawa”) and also in view of US PUBS 2012/0289358 to Oldknow et al (hereinafter referred to as “Oldknow”) and also in view of US PUBS 2009/0163295 to Tseng.
Mick in view of Motokawa and Oldknow has been discussed, above. Here, Mick, as modified by Motokawa and Oldknow, lacks a disclosure of a method step involving “placing a spacer between said deformable member and said adjustment driver in order to meet said target coefficient of restitution value”. Tseng (‘295) shows it to be old in the art to make use of a spacer (i.e., a washer 42; FIG. 1; paragraph [0036]) that abuts a rear surface of a deformable material (30). Logically, the washer clearly serves to prevent damage to the elastomeric material during tightening of the bolt/base assembly (i.e., elements 41, 43). In view of the teaching in Tseng (‘295) and the above reasoning, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device in Mick by installing a spacer between elastomeric material (36) and the brass metal plug (46), with there being a reasonable expectation of success that a spacer would have served to prevent damage to the softer elastomeric material during tightening of the metal plug. Here, any modification between the adjustment driver and the deformable member (e.g., adding a further compressive force to the deformable member as a result of a spacer abutting the deformable member) would have altered the coefficient of restitution value of the golf club head.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,586,948 to Mick in view of US PUBS 2019/0209904 to Motokawa et al (hereinafter referred to as “Motokawa”) and also in view of US PUBS 2012/0289358 to Oldknow et al (hereinafter referred to as “Oldknow”) and also in view of US PUBS 2008/0305888 to Tseng.
As to claim 5, Mick clearly shows that the deformable member (36), after being installed within the club head and arranged so as to be in abutting relationship with a rear surface of the striking face portion, includes a diameter adjacent the rear surface that is larger than a diameter adjacent the aperture (44) at the rear of the club head (i.e., see FIGS. 2-4). However, Mick does not explicitly detail the step of “deforming said deformable member as it is installed into said golf club head”. Here, Tseng (‘888) is cited to show that the prior art acknowledges multiple ways of installing a deformable elastomeric material within a cavity portion of a club head, with one method involving sizing a shock absorbing material to be larger in size than the volume of the cavity and compressing the shock absorbing material within the cavity (i.e., paragraph [0005] - [0006]), and a second method involving injecting shock absorbing material through an aperture into the cavity (i.e., paragraph [0007]). In view of the teaching in Tseng (‘888), one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the Mick device by introducing the elastomeric material (36) within the sleeve (34) in such a way that the elastomeric material is made larger in size than the volume of the sleeve and subsequently compressing the elastomeric material as it is introduced into the sleeve via the rear aperture (44). The modification of the golf club head in Mick using an installation procedure as taught by Tseng (‘888) for installing the elastomeric material within a cavity of the golf club head would have involved combining prior art elements (i.e., introducing an elastomeric material within an interior portion of the golf club head) according to known methods (i.e., sizing a shock absorbing material to be larger in size than the volume of the cavity and compressing the shock absorbing material within the cavity, as taught by Tseng ‘888) to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2018/0028883 to Morin et al (hereinafter referred to as “Morin”) in view of US PUBS 2019/0209904 to Motokawa et al (hereinafter referred to as “Motokawa”) and also in view of US PUBS 2012/0289358 to Oldknow et al (hereinafter referred to as “Oldknow”).
As to claims 1 and 3, Morin discloses a golf club head (300) with an aperture (i.e., the threaded element 330 is inserted within an aperture located adjacent a rear portion of the head; FIG. 3B) through which a deformable member (302) is introduced (i.e., referencing FIG. 3B shows that threaded element 330 may be removed to allow access to elastomer element 302), with the deformable member (302) abutting a rear surface of the striking face (318), as shown in FIG. 3B (i.e., also note elastomer material 402 abutting a rear surface of face 418, as shown in FIG. 4C). Morin further includes an adjustment driver (i.e., a threaded element 330). However, Morin does not explicitly detail the method steps of “identifying a target coefficient of restitution” and “choosing an appropriate deformable member”. Motokawa teaches designing a golf club head may comprise the steps of 1) an expected or target coefficient of restitution is recognized, 2) a prototype club head is selected and the coefficient of restitution is measured or simulated, 3) modifications are made to the prototype club head and 4) another expected coefficient of restitution is calculated (i.e, see paragraphs [0037], [0041] and [0048], along with FIG. 7). While Motokawa teaches that an appropriate modification to the club head is made to effectuate a change in the coefficient of restitution, Motokawa does not specifically discuss that an appropriate deformable member is selected, as required by claim 1, or that an alternative deformable member may be selected to provide a change in the coefficient of restitution, as further required by claim 3. Initially, note that Morin discloses that the elastomeric material may be selected to fine tune the performance of the club head (i.e., paragraph [0038]). Here, Oldknow teaches that one or more of a variety of different materials may be selected and fitted within a cavity and abutting a rear surface of the striking portion of a golf club head. The material(s) may be introduced as part of the club head assembly in order to change the coefficient of restitution (i.e., see paragraphs [0087] – [0088]). In view of the teaching in Motokawa, coupled with the additional teaching in both Morin and Oldknow, 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 club head in Morin by identifying a target coefficient of restitution and selecting a suitable deformable member or selecting an alternative deformable member that meets the target coefficient of restitution, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that altering the coefficient of restitution of the club head with the introduction of a specific deformable member would have altered the ball striking characteristics of the club head (e.g., higher coefficient or restitution would have increased ball speed upon impact), with the goal being to enable the skilled artisan to select a deformable member that maximizes the performance of the club head.
As to claims 2 and 6, note that Motokawa shows it to be obvious to use appropriate testing procedures to generate information about the coefficient of restitution (i.e., again, see paragraphs [0037], [0041] and [0048]). It is also noted that Morin already teaches that testing is employed to evaluate the performance of a club head that is fitted with a particular polyurethane material (i.e., TABLE 3 shows various ball speed retention values based upon the selection of various elastomeric materials; and see paragraph [0039] in Morin). With the combined teachings of Morin and Motokawa, 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 device in Morin by testing the coefficient of restitution value, as required by claims 2 and 6, as periodic testing would have enabled the club head designer to measure and track the coefficient of restitution as the deformable member is adjusted (i.e., replaced, tightened/loosened or otherwise altered).
As to claim 4, note that Morin includes a cradle (408A; FIGS. 4A, 4B), which may serve as the claimed “spacer”. Movement of the cradle or spacer changes the amount of compression placed upon the elastomer material (402). See paragraph [0302] in Morin. Here, a change in compression of the elastomeric material would have resulted in a change in the coefficient of restitution.
Further References of Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See FIG. 6 and col. 4, lines 30-42 in Tucker;
See claims 1 and 11 in Lafortune;
Paragraph [0057] in Deshmukh;
Paragraph [0112] in Snyder;
Paragraph [0059] in Tsurumaki;
See col. 8, line 25 through col. 9, line 5 in Fisher; and
See claims 18-20 in Gilbert.
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