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 § 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.
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. Claim 1, lines 8 and 16, the ground plane is not part of the invention. Line 12, the hosel second end is not near the transition plane, this should be the hosel first end. Claim 12, lines 10 and 12, the ground plane is not part of the invention. Line 15, the hosel second end is not near the transition plane, this should be the hosel first end.
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) 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubica (5,906,549) in view of Hettinger et al. (2015/0265885). Claim 12, Kubica discloses a golf club head comprising a club body having a top opposite a sole, a toe end opposite a heel end, and a club face opposite a back end; a hosel having a first end coupled to the club body, a second end opposite the first end, and a hosel length defined between the first end and the second end; and a hosel bore defined partially in the hosel and partially in the club body, and having a hosel bore length that is greater than the hosel length (fig 14). A hosel axis, passing through a center of the hosel bore; wherein the hosel second end is defined by a transition plane which is a plane perpendicular to the hosel axis and located at a point where an outer surface of the hosel
transitions to the club body (fig 14). Kubica does not disclose the hosel height, defined as the length between the top of the hosel and the sole/ground. Hettinger teaches a hosel height (L5), hosel length to the ground from 42.4 to 47.6 mm (1.69 to 1.87 inches) [0052] (fig 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the hosel height for the desired performance. Claim 13, Kubica the club head body further comprises a strike surface of the club face, a geometric center, and a center of gravity, the geometric center being located at a geometric center point of the club body and at a midpoint of a height of the strike surface, and the center of gravity is positioned along a y-axis extending between the top and the sole. All the features are inherent. Claim 15, wherein a hosel length defined between the first end of the hosel and the second end of the hosel ranges inclusively between 1.0 and 1.75 inches. Figure 3, shows a driver, which as a standard height range from 2.4-2.6 inches with a max of 2.8 inches. Based on the average height
of a driver the hosel length falls within the range from 1.0 to 1.75 inches. Claim 16, wherein a hosel bore length defined between the first end of the hosel and the second end of the hosel ranges inclusively between 1.0 and 2.2 inches. Figure 3, shows a driver, which as a standard height range from 2.4-2.6 inches with a max of 2.8 inches. Based on the average height of a driver the hosel length falls within the range from 1.0 to 2.2 inches.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubica (5,906,549) in view of Hettinger et al. (2015/0265885), and further in view of Lambeth et al. (2022/0370864). Takeda does not illustrate the center of gravity below the geometric center. Lambeth teaches the center of gravity below the center on the y axis within applicant’s range. One of ordinary skill in the art would lower the center of gravity for enhanced performance (launch, spin).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubica (5,906,549) in view of Hettinger et al. (2015/0265885), and further in view of Beach et al. (2018/0189758). Claim 17, Kubica does not disclose the wall thickness of the decreasing from the first end to the second end. Beach teaches a wall thickness of the hosel decreasing from the hosel first end to the hosel second end (fig 12). Claim 18, Beach teaches the hosel has a first zone positioned adjacent to the first end with a first wall thickness, and a second zone positioned adjacent to the second end with a second wall thickness that is smaller than the first wall thickness (fig 12). Claim 19, Beach teaches the hosel has a third zone positioned between the first zone and the second zone, the third zone including a third wall thickness that is smaller than the first wall thickness and greater than the second wall thickness (fig 12). Claim 20, Beach teaches the first wall thickness is tapered outwardly in a direction from the first end to second
end (fig 12) [0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would taper the hosel for desired weight distribution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights