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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (2002/0034984) in view of Sato (8,636,606). Claims 1-2, Takeda discloses a golf club head comprising a club body having a top opposite a sole, a toe opposite a heel; a hosel coupled to the club body and having a first end proximate the heel and a second end opposite the first end; a hosel bore defined at least partially by the hosel and at least partially by the club body; wherein; the hosel bore defines a hosel bore volume; a midline axis is defined as parallel to a ground plane across a geometric center of the body; an upper portion of the hosel bore is located above the midline axis and a lower portion of the hosel bore is located below the midline axis, and; at least 8-20% of the hosel bore volume is located below the midline axis. See figures 1 and 5 where the bore continues into the body below a midline of the face in figure 3. Below is a midline of the face parallel with the ground of Takeda. A portion of the hosel is integral with the club body as shown in figure 1, but the top portion of the hosel is removable. One of ordinary skill in the art would make the entire hosel integral for better stability. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takeda does not disclose a continuous bore hole. Sato teaches a continuous hosel bore (fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have made the hosel bore continuous for increased strength. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963). Claim 3, The golf club head of claim 1, wherein 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 5, 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 5, Length L is at least 70 mm or 2.8 inches. Hosel portion 7B is a little more than half the range according to the figures or at least 35 mm or 1.38 inches. Claim 6, wherein a hosel bore length defined between a hosel bore first end within the club body and a hosel bore second end at the second end of the hosel ranges inclusively between 1.0 and 2.2 inches. Figure 2 shows a bore length of about 2/3 of length L (70 mm) or 47 mm (1.85 inches). Claim 7, wherein a ratio of a hosel bore volume above the midline axis to a hosel bore volume below the midline axis is approximately 1.5:0.025 to 1.5:0.25 (see figure above). Claim 12, Takeda 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 (figs. 1 and 5). A portion of the hosel is integral with the club body as shown in figure 1, but the top portion of the hosel is removable. One of ordinary skill in the art would make the entire hosel integral for better stability. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Takeda does not disclose a continuous bore hole. Sato teaches a continuous hosel bore (fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have made the hosel bore continuous for increased strength. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963). Claim 13, 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 5, Length L is at least 70 mm or 2.8 inches. Hosel portion 7B is a little more than half the range according to the figures or at least 35 mm or 1.38 inches. Claim 16, wherein a hosel bore length defined between a hosel bore first end within the club body and a hosel bore second end at the second end of the hosel ranges inclusively between 1.0 and 2.2 inches. Figure 2 shows a bore length of about 2/3 of length L (70 mm) or 47 mm (1.85 inches).
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) 8-11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (2002/0034984) in view of Sato (8,636,606), and further in view of Beach et al. (2018/0189758). Claim 8, Takeda 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 9, 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 10, 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 11, Beach teaches the first wall thickness is tapered outwardly in a direction from the first end to second end (fig 12) [0083]. Claim 17, Takeda 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (2002/0034984) in view of Sato (8,636,606), 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
March 18, 2026