DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant first discusses the use of CG-C-SA as used in claims 1, 9, and 17 in the parent application 16/406,382. As such, those independent claims are afforded a priority date of 5/8/19 based on parent application 16/406,382.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the wall having an opening in a heel-to-toe direction, the opening connecting the heel side cavity portion to the toe side cavity portion” of claim 16 as it relates to Fig. 43 needs proper antecedent basis in the specification.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripp (US Pub. No. 2018/0093145 A1) in view of Reed et al. (herein “Reed”; US Pub. No. 2004/0214655 A1) as evidenced by Reed et al. (herein “Reed ‘484”; US Pub. No. 2005/0277484 A1) and in further view of Sun et al. (herein “Sun”; US Pat. No. 5,050,879).
Regarding claim 1, Ripp discloses a golf club head (Fig. 1) comprising: a striking face portion located at a frontal portion of the golf club head defining a loft of the golf club head (Fig. 1; noting a loft is inherent); a back portion located aft of the striking face portion (Fig. 2); a topline located at an upper portion of the golf club head between the striking face portion and the back portion (Fig. 2; clearly showing a topline); a sole portion located at a lower portion of the golf club head between the striking face portion and the back portion (Fig. 4), and a hosel located near a heel portion of the golf club head adapted to engage a shaft (Figs. 3 and 4; noting “adapted to engage a shaft” is functionally possible given the structure), wherein when the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees (par. [0076]; noting 40 to 67o makes obvious the claimed range). It is noted that Ripp does not specifically disclose that the golf club head has a CG-C-SA relationship with the loft that satisfies the equation below: CG-C-SA < 0.1907*Loft + 11.17, the CG-C-SA defined as a distance measured in millimeters of a center of gravity of the golf club head rearward of a hosel bore axis of the golf club head along a Z-axis. However, Ripp discloses a golf club that would inherently have some CG-C-SA relationship as compared to the loft (Fig. 7, item 132 being the cg location). In addition, Reed discloses the Zcg location (i.e. CG-C-SA) for a set of irons wherein the loft has a linear relationship with that Zcg (see figure below, data taken from Reed: Fig. 6, Table 1; noting the loft versus Zcg for the “Mizuno 3, 6, and 9 irons”; see also as evidence, Reed ‘484: Fig. 6 evidencing that Reed measures Zcg off the hosel bore). In addition, using the linear relationship as disclosed in Reed to dictate the Zcg location by the loft, and utilizing a loft of 57o as made obvious by Ripp: par. [0076], the resulting Zcg or CG-C-SA would be 14.55 mm (see figure below). Furthermore, the claimed equation of claim 1 yields a value of 22.04; the value of 14.55 well below this value. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ripp to use the linear relationship of CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) as compared to loft so that a wedge with a 57o loft would have a Zcg of 14.55 mm and meet the above claimed criteria as taught and suggested by Reed because doing so would be apply a known technique (using a linear relationship between Zcg and loft to dictate the Zcg location based on loft) to a known product (a wedge having a loft of 57o) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (defining the Zcg location dictated by a linear relationship as compared to the loft, the relationship expanded to a wedge having a loft of 57o to provide consistent Zcg location based on loft and the linear relationship known to work in existing irons). Finally, it is noted that the combined Ripp and Reed do not specifically disclose that the sole portion further comprises a hollow sole cavity and a cap, wherein the hollow sole cavity further comprises a heel side cavity portion and a toe side cavity portion, wherein a weight adjustment portion is located within the toe side cavity portion of the hollow sole cavity, and wherein the heel side cavity portion is void of material. However, Ripp discloses using weight near the sole to shift the center of gravity (Fig. 11A, 11C and pars. [0113]-[0114]). In addition, Sun discloses an iron wherein the sole portion further comprises a hollow sole cavity and a cap (Fig. 2, item 16 being the cap), wherein the hollow sole cavity further comprises a heel side cavity portion and a toe side cavity portion (Fig. 2, item 13 being the heel, and item 15 being the toe), wherein a weight adjustment portion is located within the toe side cavity portion of the hollow sole cavity (Fig. 2, item 14). Furthermore, regarding the language “wherein the heel side cavity portion is void of material”, Ripp specifically discloses that a heel side cavity may be void of material (Fig. 11A and pars. [0113]-[0114]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Ripp and Reed to make the sole portion further comprises a hollow sole cavity and a cap, wherein the hollow sole cavity further comprises a heel side cavity portion and a toe side cavity portion, wherein a weight adjustment portion is located within the toe side cavity portion of the hollow sole cavity, and wherein the heel side cavity portion is void of material as taught by Sun and suggested by Ripp because doing so would be combining prior art elements (using weights in the sole to shift the center of gravity, the sole cavity covered by a sole plate and using weights in the rear surface near the sole, some of the cavities left void) according to known methods (utilizing the weight cavities on the sole instead of the rear portion) to obtain predictable results (using a sole cavity with weigh inserts, the weight inserts used to adjust the cg location and some cavities left void to make that cg adjustment – see Sun: col. 1, lines 59-64 and Ripp: par. [0114]).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun disclose that the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees, the CG-C-SA is between 13 mm and 14.6 mm (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious 57, and Reed: Table 1, the Mizuno irons predicting a Zcg of 14.55 mm for a 57o loft). It is noted that the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun do not specifically disclose that the upper limit is at most 14 mm. However, regarding the exact Zcg location, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, to support the Examiner’s assertion that exact CG-C-SA or Zcg position is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Reed which specifically states that specific cg location (including Zcg location) is a result-effective variable used to optimize MOIx and MOIy (see par. [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize MOIx and MOIy.
Regarding claim 3, the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun disclose that the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees, the CG-C-SA is between 13.1 mm and 14.6 mm (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious 57, and Reed: Table 1, the Mizuno irons predicting a Zcg of 14.55 mm for a 57o loft). It is noted that the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun do not specifically disclose that the upper limit is at most 13.9 mm. However, regarding the exact Zcg location, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, to support the Examiner’s assertion that exact CG-C-SA or Zcg position is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Reed which specifically states that specific cg location (including Zcg location) is a result-effective variable used to optimize MOIx and MOIy (see par. [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize MOIx and MOIy.
Regarding claim 4, the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun disclose that the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees, the CG-C-SA is between 13.2 mm and 14.6 mm (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious 57, and Reed: Table 1, the Mizuno irons predicting a Zcg of 14.55 mm for a 57o loft). It is noted that the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun do not specifically disclose that the upper limit is at most 13.8 mm. However, regarding the exact Zcg location, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, to support the Examiner’s assertion that exact CG-C-SA or Zcg position is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Reed which specifically states that specific cg location (including Zcg location) is a result-effective variable used to optimize MOIx and MOIy (see par. [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize MOIx and MOIy.
Regarding claim 5, the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun disclose that the golf club head has a CG-C-SA relationship with the loft that satisfies the equation below: CG-C-SA < 0.0879*Loft + 11.667 (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious a loft of 57o, and Reed: Table 1 making obvious a predicted Zcg value of 14.55 based on the Mizuno linear equation; the claimed equation equaling 16.67 and being greater than 14.55).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun disclose that the hosel has a length of greater than 74 mm (Ripp: par. [0095]; noting it can be 75 mm). It is noted that the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun do not specifically disclose that the upper limit is at least 83.5 mm. However, regarding the exact length of the hosel, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, to support the Examiner’s assertion that exact hosel length is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Ripp which specifically states that specific hosel length is a result-effective variable used to optimize weighting within the head and cg location (see par. [0081] and [0095]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact hosel length could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize weighting within the head and cg location.
Regarding claim 7, the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun disclose that the heel side cavity portion and the toe side cavity portion are separated by a wall (Sun: Fig. 2; noting the walls around item 14).
Regarding claim 8, the combined Ripp, Reed, and Sun disclose that the wall has an opening in a heel-to-toe direction, the opening connecting the heel side cavity portion to the toe side cavity portion (Sun: Fig. 2, noting the opening for item cavity, item 14; noting it clearly extends in a heel-to-toe direction).
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripp (US Pub. No. 2018/0093145 A1) in view of Reed et al. (herein “Reed”; US Pub. No. 2004/0214655 A1) as evidenced by Reed et al. (herein “Reed ‘484”; US Pub. No. 2005/0277484 A1) and in further view of MacIntyre (US Pat. No. 3,143,349).
Regarding claim 9, Ripp discloses a golf club head (Fig. 1) comprising: a striking face portion located at a frontal portion of the golf club head defining a loft of the golf club head (Fig. 1; noting a loft is inherent); a back portion located aft of the striking face portion (Fig. 2); a topline located at an upper portion of the golf club head between the striking face portion and the back portion (Fig. 2; clearly showing a topline); a sole portion located at a lower portion of the golf club head between the striking face portion and the back portion (Fig. 4), and a hosel located near a heel portion of the golf club head adapted to engage a shaft (Figs. 3 and 4; noting “adapted to engage a shaft” is functionally possible given the structure), wherein when the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees (par. [0076]; noting 40 to 67o makes obvious the claimed range). It is noted that Ripp does not specifically disclose that the golf club head has a CG-C-SA relationship with the loft that satisfies the equation below: CG-C-SA < 0.1907*Loft + 11.17, the CG-C-SA defined as a distance measured in millimeters of a center of gravity of the golf club head rearward of a hosel bore axis of the golf club head along a Z-axis. However, Ripp discloses a golf club that would inherently have some CG-C-SA relationship as compared to the loft (Fig. 7, item 132 being the cg location). In addition, Reed discloses the Zcg location (i.e. CG-C-SA) for a set of irons wherein the loft has a linear relationship with that Zcg (see figure above, data taken from Reed: Fig. 6, Table 1; noting the loft versus Zcg for the “Mizuno 3, 6, and 9 irons”; see also as evidence, Reed ‘484: Fig. 6 evidencing that Reed measures Zcg off the hosel bore). Also, using the linear relationship as disclosed in Reed to dictate the Zcg location by the loft, and utilizing a loft of 57o as made obvious by Ripp: par. [0076], the resulting Zcg or CG-C-SA would be 14.55 mm (see figure above). Furthermore, the claimed equation of claim 9 yields a value of 22.04; the value of 14.55 well below this value. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ripp to use the linear relationship of CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) as compared to loft so that a wedge with a 57o loft would have a Zcg of 14.55 mm and meet the above claimed criteria as taught and suggested by Reed because doing so would be apply a known technique (using a linear relationship between Zcg and loft to dictate the Zcg location based on loft) to a known product (a wedge having a loft of 57o) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (defining the Zcg location dictated by a linear relationship as compared to the loft, the relationship expanded to a wedge having a loft of 57o to provide consistent Zcg location based on loft and the linear relationship known to work in existing irons). Finally, it is noted that the combined Ripp and Reed do not specifically disclose that the sole portion further comprises a hollow sole cavity and a cap, wherein the hollow sole cavity further comprises a heel side cavity portion and a toe side cavity portion separated by a wall, wherein a weight adjustment portion is located within the toe side cavity portion of the hollow sole cavity, and wherein the heel side cavity portion has a volume greater than the toe side cavity portion. However, Ripp discloses using weight near the sole to shift the center of gravity (Fig. 11A and pars. [0113]-[0114]). In addition, MacIntyre discloses a golf club head the sole portion further comprises a hollow sole cavity and a cap (Fig. 6, item 36 being the cap), wherein the hollow sole cavity further comprises a heel side cavity portion and a toe side cavity portion separated by a wall (Fig. 6, item 32), wherein a weight adjustment portion is located within the toe side cavity portion of the hollow sole cavity (Fig. 6, items 40), and wherein the heel side cavity portion has a volume greater than the toe side cavity portion (Fig. 6 and col. 2, lines 55-59; clearly making obvious that the heel has a greater volume because it extends longer). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Ripp and Reed to make the sole portion further comprise a hollow sole cavity and a cap, wherein the hollow sole cavity further comprises a heel side cavity portion and a toe side cavity portion separated by a wall, wherein a weight adjustment portion is located within the toe side cavity portion of the hollow sole cavity, and wherein the heel side cavity portion has a volume greater than the toe side cavity portion as taught by MacIntyre and suggested by Ripp because doing so would be combining prior art elements (using weights in the sole to shift the center of gravity and change the balance of the golf club, the heel cavity having a volume greater than the toe cavity) according to known methods (utilizing the weight cavities on the sole using a single cover of the cavities, the heel cavity having a larger volume than the toe cavity) to obtain predictable results (using a sole cavity with weigh inserts covering the weights and the heel cavity having a volume greater than the toe cavity, the weight inserts used to inherently adjust the cg location and thus the balance of the golf club head – see MacIntyre: col. 1, lines 17-22).
Regarding claim 10, the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre disclose that the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees, the CG-C-SA is between 13 mm and 14.6 mm (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious 57, and Reed: Table 1, the Mizuno irons predicting a Zcg of 14.55 mm for a 57o loft). It is noted that the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre do not specifically disclose that the upper limit is at most 14 mm. However, regarding the exact Zcg location, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, to support the Examiner’s assertion that exact CG-C-SA or Zcg position is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Reed which specifically states that specific cg location (including Zcg location) is a result-effective variable used to optimize MOIx and MOIy (see par. [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize MOIx and MOIy.
Regarding claim 11, the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre disclose that the golf club head has a CG-C-SA relationship with the loft that satisfies the equation below: CG-C-SA < 0.0879*Loft + 11.667 (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious a loft of 57o, and Reed: Table 1 making obvious a predicted Zcg value of 14.55 based on the Mizuno linear equation; the claimed equation equaling 16.67 and being greater than 14.55).
Regarding claims 12, the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre disclose that the cap completely covers both the heel side cavity portion and the toe side cavity portion (MacIntyre: Figs. 5 and 6, item 36 and col. 2, lines 60-70).
Regarding claims 13, the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre disclose that the heel side cavity portion is void of material (Ripp: par. [0114]; specifically stating that the heel cavity may be empty of a weight; also see MacIntyre: col. 2, line 71 to col. 3, line 15; noting the ability to remove/add weight to either cavity to obtain the desired “balance” and overall weight is functionally possible; as such, it is functionally possible to remove all of the weights on the heel side cavity).
Regarding claims 14, the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre disclose that the weight adjustment portion does not contact the heel side cavity portion (MacIntyre: col. 2, line 71 to col. 3, line 15 and Fig. 6, items 40 for the toe cavity; see rejection of claim 13 above; noting the ability to use the weights in only the toe cavity is functionally possible given the structure, and the weights do not contact the heel side cavity because wall 32 separates them).
Regarding claims 15, the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre disclose that the heel side cavity portion and the toe side cavity portion are separated by a wall (MacIntyre: Fig. 6, item 32)
Regarding claim 16, the combined Ripp, Reed, and MacIntyre disclose that the wall has an opening in a heel-to-toe-direction, the opening connecting the heel side cavity portion to the toe side cavity portion (MacIntyre: Fig. 6 below; the Examiner taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language; noting the wall does not extend down all the way and thus has an “opening” extending between the heel and toe cavity that allows the bottom cap to sit flush when installed). In the alternative, regarding the exact shape of the wall (i.e. having an opening), it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)(see applicant’s drawings, Figs. 43-44 and pars. [0155]-[0156]; noting even discussing “the opening”, let alone giving criticality to it). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact shape of the wall would not be significant: that is, the wall would separate the heel and toe cavity, regardless of its exact shape.
PNG
media_image2.png
447
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripp (US Pub. No. 2018/0093145 A1) in view of Reed et al. (herein “Reed”; US Pub. No. 2004/0214655 A1) as evidenced by Reed et al. (herein “Reed ‘484”; US Pub. No. 2005/0277484 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ripp discloses a golf club head (Fig. 1) comprising: a striking face portion located at a frontal portion of the golf club head defining a loft of the golf club head (Fig. 1; noting a loft is inherent); a back portion located aft of the striking face portion (Fig. 2); a topline located at an upper portion of the golf club head between the striking face portion and the back portion (Fig. 2; clearly showing a topline); a sole portion located at a lower portion of the golf club head between the striking face portion and the back portion (Fig. 4), and a hosel located near a heel portion of the golf club head adapted to engage a shaft (Figs. 3 and 4; noting “adapted to engage a shaft” is functionally possible given the structure), wherein when the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees (par. [0076]; noting 40 to 67o makes obvious the claimed range). It is noted that Ripp does not specifically disclose that the golf club head has a CG-C-SA relationship with the loft that satisfies the equation below: CG-C-SA < 0.1907*Loft + 11.17, the CG-C-SA defined as a distance measured in millimeters of a center of gravity of the golf club head rearward of a hosel bore axis of the golf club head along a Z-axis. However, Ripp discloses a golf club that would inherently have some CG-C-SA relationship as compared to the loft (Fig. 7, item 132 being the cg location). In addition, Reed discloses the Zcg location (i.e. CG-C-SA) for a set of irons wherein the loft has an approximately linear relationship with that Zcg (see figure above, data taken from Reed: Fig. 6, Table 1; noting the loft versus Zcg for the “Mizuno 3, 6, and 9 irons”; see also as evidence, Reed ‘484: Fig. 6 evidencing that Reed measures Zcg off the hosel bore). In addition, using the linear relationship as disclosed in Reed to dictate the Zcg location by the loft, and utilizing a loft of 57o as made obvious by Ripp: par. [0076], the resulting Zcg or CG-C-SA would be 14.55 mm (see figure above). Furthermore, the claimed equation of claim 17 yields a value of 22.04; the value of 14.55 well below this value. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ripp to use the linear relationship of CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) as compared to loft so that a wedge with a 57o loft would have a Zcg of 14.55 mm as taught and suggested by Reed because doing so would be apply a known technique (using a linear relationship between Zcg and loft to dictate the Zcg location based on loft) to a known product (a wedge having a loft of 57o) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (defining the Zcg location dictated by a linear relationship as compared to the loft, the relationship expanded to a wedge having a loft of 57o to provide consistent Zcg location based on loft and the linear relationship known to work in existing irons).
Regarding claim 18, the combined Ripp and Reed disclose that the golf club head has a CG-C-SA relationship with the loft that satisfies the equation below: CG-C-SA < 0.0879*Loft + 11.667 (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious a loft of 57o, and Reed: Table 1 making obvious a predicted Zcg value of 14.55 based on the Mizuno’s; the equation equaling 16.67 which is greater than 14.55).
Regarding claim 19, the combined Ripp and Reed disclose that the loft of the golf club head is greater than 56 degrees, the CG-C-SA is between 13 mm and 14.6 mm (Ripp: par. [0076] making obvious 57, and Reed: Table 1, the Mizuno irons predicting a Zcg of 14.55 mm for a 57o loft). It is noted that the combined Ripp and Reed do not specifically disclose that the upper limit is at most 14 mm. However, regarding the exact Zcg location, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, to support the Examiner’s assertion that exact CG-C-SA or Zcg position is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Reed which specifically states that specific cg location (including Zcg location) is a result-effective variable used to optimize MOIx and MOIy (see par. [0042]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact CG-C-SA (aka Zcg) could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize MOIx and MOIy.
Regarding claim 20, the combined Ripp and Reed disclose that the hosel has a length of greater than 74 mm (Ripp: par. [0095]; noting it can be 75 mm). It is noted that the combined Ripp and Reed do not specifically disclose that the upper limit is at least 83.5 mm. However, regarding the exact length of the hosel, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, to support the Examiner’s assertion that exact hosel length is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Ripp which specifically states that specific hosel length is a result-effective variable used to optimize weighting within the head and cg location (see par. [0081] and [0095]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact hosel length could be found through routine experimentation in order to optimize weighting within the head and cg location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1-8 and 17-20, the claims have remained unchanged since the previous office action. As such, the previous response is repeated below.
103
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the arguments with regards to these claims were previously presented. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ripp in view of Reed because “Reed does not apply to golf club heads having lofts greater than 50o” (see Remarks, received 6/27/25, page 10; also repeated on page 12 for claim 17). Respectfully submitted, the argument is not compelling. First, the Examiner cites to Fig. 6, Table 1 and the “Mizuno” irons. “Mizuno” is not the Reed invention; it is used as a comparison to show a historical comparison of Cg in known golf clubs (i.e. “Adams” is the Reed invention). So, to argue a teaching away based on the disclosure in Reed is somewhat illogical. Second, applicant argues that reference in isolation instead of noting what it would teach one of ordinary skill in the art. The Mizuno Zcg data clearly shows an almost perfect linear relationship between Zcg and loft angle (emphasis added). The primary reference Ripp makes obvious that a loft of 57o can be used for an iron wedge (par. [0076]). Applying the linear relationship as disclosed for the Mizuno irons to an “iron” having a loft of 57o would not only be 1) applying a known technique which is clearly known to work for irons (i.e. locating Zcg location based on loft), it would also 2) create the predictable results of keeping the irons having a consistent Zcg throughout an iron entire set including wedges having a loft at 57o. Third, even assuming arguendo that applicant’s argument directed at Reed is correct, Reed actually discloses a range of up to “approximately 50 degrees” (par. [0023]). As Reed gives no definitive value for “approximately”, the phrase “approximately 50 degrees” can encompass 57 degrees. Fourth, Ripp actually teaches using a range of “between 40 to 67 degrees” (par. [0076]). Reed teaches a range of “approximately 15 to approximately 50 degrees” (par. [0032]). Even assuming arguendo that Reed does not disclose a value of up to 57 degrees, a POSA would still look at Reed to solve the problem of cg location based on the significant overlap in loft ranges with Ripp.
Applicant goes on to essentially argue that the Examiner’s position is in error because the Examiner proposes manipulating the Zcg in Ripp “without any explanation of how the golf club head disclosed in Ripp would need to be modified”. This is clearly a bodily incorporation issue. That is, applicant is clearly asking the Examiner to explain how the Zcg adjustment and/or location is bodily incorporated into Ripp. Respectfully submitted, this is not the standard for obviousness. In addition, it clearly does not give any credit to a POSA and/or the teachings as disclosed in Reed and Reed ‘484 for Cg manipulation (see Reed: par. [0042] clearly disclosing that a POSA knows how to manipulate MOI to obtain cg location, and see Reed ‘484: pars. [0034]-[0035] specifically disclosing ways to shift the cg). The Examiner also points applicant, and the potentially the Board, to Lytle (US Pub. No. 2015/0151175 A1), pars. [0037]-[0038] evidencing that a POSA would know how to shift cg location (see also Hebreo, US Pub. No. 2013/0288823 A1; pars. [0052]-[0053]; assignee’s own art showing that a POSA knows how to shift cg location).
Regarding the amendment to claim 8, the Examiner fails to see how the amendment structurally differentiates against the cited art. The middle opening in Sun: Fig. 2, item 14 clearly has some tangible length in the heel-to-toe direction and is an opening that connects the heel side cavity portion and the toe side cavity portion (under a broadest reasonable interpretation) . It appears that applicant is importing the structure of Fig. 43 into the interpretation of claim 8; which the Examiner will not do. That is, applicant appears to take a position that claim 8 reads like --the wall has an opening in a heel-to-toe direction, said opening directly connecting a void created in the heel side cavity portion to a void created in the toe side cavity portion--. Respectfully submitted, this is not how the claim language reads and it is claimed broader than that.
With regards to claim 9-16 (on pages 7-8), applicant repeats a number of arguments regarding the combination of Ripp and Reed addressed above with regards to claims 1-8. Those arguments have been directly addressed above. Applicant makes no specific arguments with regards to the use of and inclusion of the new reference MacIntyre.
With regards to claims 17-20, applicant repeats a number of arguments regarding the combination of Ripp and Reed addressed above with regards to claims 1-8.
No other arguments are advanced.
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 MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
3/17/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711