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.
Claim 72 is 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.
Regarding claim 72, the language ‘each one of at least two recesses of the plurality of recesses . .’ is unclear. Claim 71 claims that the plurality of recesses has at least two rows of recesses. It is not clear if the claim is referring to two standalone recesses or the two rows of recesses. For this reason, claim 72 is considered indefinite. For examination purposes, claim 72 will be interpreted as each recess of the plurality of recesses.
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) 58, 60-65, and 67-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Cardani et al. (USPN 9517393) in view of Clarke et al. (US 2020/0298077).
Regarding claim 58, Cardani et al. discloses an iron-type club head having a body 12 and strike plate 14. The body is made of a first material (See Column 3, lines 52 through 64) having a first density and includes a heel portion, toe portion, part of the sole portion, top portion, part of a front portion, a rear portion, a rear wall, face opening, and toe port (See Figures 4-6). The strike plate includes a strike face covering the face opening and a plurality of grooves parallel to each other. Cardani et al. also discloses a toe cavity having a toe weight 30 (See Paragraph bridging Columns 4 and 5) made of a second material with a second density. The rear wall is made of the
insert or filler wherein the insert or filler has a variable thickness for weight reduction
and recesses therein (See Column 4, lines 18 through 41 and Figures 6 and 7).
In addition, the toe weight has a density greater than the density of the
body material (See Paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5) being that the weight is made of tungsten. Cardani et al. also discloses a primary beam 34 coupled to the interior surface of the rear wall at the variable thickness region of the rear wall (See Column 5, lines 14 through 43). In reference to the ratio of the minimum thickness of the rear wall and the minimum thickness of the face, applicant does not disclose why the ratio is critical in order to attain the invention. Cardani et al. notes that the structure of the rear wall is for lightening the mass of the club head while maintaining strength to withstand impact with the ball (See Column 4, lines 18 through 29). Cardani et al. notes that the rear thickness can vary and shows that the strike plate thickness can also vary as shown in Figure 3. Being that both the rear wall and strike face having varying thicknesses, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the ratio of the rear wall and face to be an obvious choice of design. The thicknesses of Cardani et al. would perform equally as well since is reallocates mass within the club head. Cardani et al. discloses a toe port but does not disclose a filler material. Clark et al. discloses a club head having a filler 640 material therein. The filler material has a density lower than 0.30 g/cm3 (See Paragraph 0178) and in noted to be injected into the club head cavity (See Paragraph 0196). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a filler material, as taught by Clarke et al., in order to assist in stiffening the club head while reducing the weight of the club head.
Regarding claim 60, Cardani et al. discloses the internal weight cavity closer to the toe than the heel and closer to the sole than the topline (See Figure 4).
Regarding claim 61, Cardani et al. discloses the internal weight cavity and the internal weight elongated in a toe-heel direction (See Figure 4).
Regarding claim 62, Cardani et al. shows the depth of the internal weight cavity and the thickness of the internal weight increasing in a top to sole direction (See Figure 4).
Regarding claim 63, Cardini et al. shows the internal weight cavity and the internal weight elongated in a top to sole direction (See Figure 4).
Regarding claim 64, see the above regarding claim 62.
Regarding claim 65, Clarke et al. discloses the toe port 663 having a filler-injection channel passing entirely through the internal weight (See Figure 24). This is evident based on paragraph 0223 noting that a toe crew weight 662 prevents the injected material from flow out of the cavity of the club head. Further, the toe port would inherently have an angle relative to a plurality of grooves on the strike face of the club head as evident by Figure 21).
Regarding claim 68, see the above regarding claim 1. In addition, Cardani et al. discloses the primary beams 34 being attached to the top wall and the internal weight cavity (See Column 5, lines 33 through 43 and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 69, Cardani et al. discloses the primary beam being elongated and extending lengthwise at an angle relative to the plurality of grooves in an upward direction away from the toe portion (See Figure 4).
Regarding claim 70, Cardani et al. discloses more than one beams wherein a beam may extending between the heel portion from the topline to the rearwall (See Column 5, lines 33 through 43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 75 and 77 are allowed.
Claims 66, 67, and 71-74 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 58-77 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