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 .
Drawings
The drawing objection has not been maintained in view of applicant’s remarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has not been maintained in view of applicant’s remarks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) s -1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Parsons et al. 11,707,653.
As set forth in the previous office action;
“Where the present claimed subject matter with respect to a first and seconds polymer are first found in the instant CIP, such is not afforded an earlier effective filing date consistent with the parent 17/692,576. As such the effective filing date for the purposes of applying art is considered to by the current filing date of 12/15/2023.
Parsons shows an iron type golf club head comprising the common structural features including an intermediate wall 1512 partly defining a front cavity 1510 between the striking face and the intermediate wall;
PNG
media_image1.png
642
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the intermediate wall has a front surface facing an interior surface of the striking face and extending between an interior surface of the sole and an interior surface of the top portion, and wherein the front surface of the intermediate wall and the interior surface of the striking face are substantially parallel; and a first polymer material 1712 at least partially filling the front cavity.
As to claims 2-4, Parson suggest the volume of the cavity to be “similar to…any fo the incorporated by reference patent documents” (col. 12, ln. 60). Where 10,828,538 suggests the volume of the interior cavity 700 to be 8.19-27.86cc (col. 23, ln. 31) a volume at the low end of his range of 8190mm^3 is considered to meet the limitation of the claims as being less than 11,000mm^3.
Claims 5-8 are considered met where Parsons shows that the entire front cavity may be filled.
As to claim 8, 1410 is considered a back portion with a rear cavity 1714 defined between the intermediate wall and the back portion, and wherein the intermediate wall has an opening 4981 that couples the front cavity to the rear cavity.
Claim 9 is considered shown where 4981 is considered an opening is defined in the body that exposes the front cavity to an exterior of the golf club head, and the opening is at least partially in at least one of the sole, the top portion, or a toe of the body.
Use of a first and second polymers 3577 and 3611 as called for in claim 10 are considered shown such that the first polymer material is in contact with the interior surface of the striking face, and the second polymer material in the front cavity that at least partially engages the first polymer material.
Where Parsons shows the entire range that the cavity maybe partially or entirely filed with a first material and the remainer filled with the second the relative percentages of the second polymer in the cavity as recited in claims 11-13 is considered met.
Where 3577 is considered a first polymer material, such is considered to meet the limitation that it fills at least part of a lower portion of the front cavity proximal to the sole, and the golf club head further comprises a second polymer material that fills another portion of the front cavity that is separated from the sole by the first polymer material.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are is considered met as set forth above with respect to claims 8, 10 and 14.
As to claim 19, 4971 and 4981 are considered to be a pair of openings in the intermediate wall that respectively couple the front cavity to the rear cavity, and the intermediate wall comprises a panel 4912 extending between the pair of openings and at least partially through the primary cavity in a direction substantially perpendicular to a toe-heel direction, and wherein the panel has a thickness such that it protrudes forward toward the striking face at a center portion of the panel, and a first polymer material of the plurality of different polymer materials fills at least part of the front cavity and part of the rear cavity such that the first polymer material contacts both a front surface of the center portion of the panel facing the striking face and a rear surface of the center portion of the panel facing away from the striking face.
20. An iron type golf club head, comprising: a body, comprising: a striking face having a substantially flat outermost surface and one or more grooves defined in the outermost surface, and having a lower leading edge and an opposite upper topline edge, a top portion extending rearward from the upper topline edge, a sole extending rearward from the lower leading edge, and an intermediate wall partly defining a front cavity between the striking face and the intermediate wall, the front cavity having a volume of less than about 15,000 mm3; and a first polymer material at least partially filling the front cavity, wherein a first opening is defined in the body and exposes the front cavity to an exterior of the golf club head.”
Applicant’s recitation in the amended claims that, “a front surface facing an interior surface of the striking face and extending from an interior surface of the sole to an interior surface of the top Portion” and argues that inner wall 1512 merely extends partially therebetween. The examiner does not agree with applicant’s narrow interpretation. The claim defines broadly the top portion as merely extending rearward from the upper topline edge and the sole extending rearward form the lower leading edge. Such is met as further annotated in Parsons fig. 18 below;
PNG
media_image2.png
784
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, applicant argues that that the intermediate wall does not divide the primary cavity into a front cavity and rear cavity and has added the relative size limitations that the front cavity is less than 75% of the volume of the primary cavity. Turing to embodiment of fig. 113, the limitations do not distinguish over the prior art where 11111 and 11110 are front and rear cavities respectively and the front cavity is less than 75% of the entire whole primary cavity made up of 11111 and 11110. The cavities may be filled with different materials as claimed as set forth at col. 91, lns. 30-45.
Where claim 20 has been amended to recite a first opening in the top, sole or toe, such is considered met by the ports in the body 11010 disclosed at col 91, ln.10. As such, the claims fail to distinguish over the applied art.
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 William Pierce whose telephone number is (571)272-4414 and E-mail address is bill.pierce@USPTO.gov. For emergency assistance, supervisory assistance can be obtained with Melba Bumgarner at (571)272-4709.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, communication via email at the above address may be found more effective. Where current PTO internet usage policy does not permit an examiner to initiate communication via email, such are at the discretion of the applicant. However, without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me by responding to this inquiry by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
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).
/WILLIAM M PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights