DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10-14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being obvious over Chen (USPN 7169062) in view of Wada (USPN 8465379).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a ball striking device having a ball striking
plate. The ball striking plate has a front surface and a rear surface and includes a
geometric center, a desired contact region, and a perimeter. Chen also discloses one or
more spoke-like reinforcement ribs located on the rear surface of the ball striking plate
and extending away from the geometric center toward the perimeter. Each spoke-like
reinforcement rib has a cross-sectional shape, height, width, and cross-sectional area
(See Figure 3-9). Applicant does not disclose why the dimension and shape of the
spoke-like reinforcement ribs are critical in order to attain the invention. According to
the applicant, the spoke-like reinforcement ribs can have a maximum height of 2mm, and maximum width of 3mm, and a maximum cross-section of 1mm² (See Paragraphs
61, 62, and 64 of the specification). Chen does note that the thickness (height) of the
ribs can range from 0 to 30mm (See Column 4, lines 55 through 67) and that the width
can vary. Chen does not disclose a second spoke-like rib having a length that does not reach the perimeter. Wada disclose a club head having spoke-like ribs on the rear of the ball striking plate wherein a second set of spoke-like ribs 16a and 16b extend toward the perimeter but do not reach the perimeter (See Figures 1 and 2). Wada notes that the spoke-like rib configuration maintains the COR but improves the strength of the club head (See Summary of the Invention). One having ordain skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a set of spoke-like ribs that do not reach the perimeter of the ball striking plate, as taught by Wada, in order to strengthen the ball striking plate while maintaining COR.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant does not disclose why having curved ribs are
critical in attaining the invention. Chen discloses a club head having a ball striking plate
with spoke-like reinforcement ribs wherein the ribs gradually increase in thickness (See
Figure 7). Though Chen does not show the ribs being curved, curved ribs would
gradually increase in thickness also. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would
have found the curved profile of the ribs to be an obvious choice of design. The ribs
disclosed by Chen would perform equally as well since it reinforces the ball striking
plate and places more flexure emphasis on the geometric center of the ball striking
plate.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses at least one of the spoke-like reinforcement
rips being a linear element (See Figure 2, 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses that having a thickened portion with an
elevated area on the rear surface of the ball striking plate is well known. This is evident
by Figure 1 and the description of the related art disclosed by Chen. Further Chen also
discloses that the disclosed invention and the invention in Figure 1 have similar
configuration and function (See Column 3, lines 33 through 40). Based on the above,
one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the elevated thickened area to be
an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 11, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, see the above regrading claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, see the above regarding claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10-14, 18 and 19 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 ALVIN A HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4411. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ALVIN A HUNTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights