Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/511,116

PUTTER-TYPE GOLF CLUB HEAD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Examiner
HUNTER, ALVIN A
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sumitomo Rubber Industries, LTD.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1128 granted / 1316 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1348
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.2%
+7.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1316 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2006/0094522) in view of Kato (JP 2006-218080) and Ashcraft (USPN 6261190). Regarding claim 1, Tang et al. discloses a putter head having a striking surface having a face center and a top surface extending rearwardly from the striking surface (See Figures 1 and 4). Tang et al. also discloses the putter head having a mass of 250 to 500 grams (See Paragraph 0026), length of 3 to 6 inches (See Paragraph 0037), a width of 3 to 6.0 inch (See Paragraph 0031), and a moment of inertia of greater than 3500 g-cm2 about the lzz axis (See Paragraph 0040). It should be noted that applicant shows the z-axis in the same direction as that of Tang et al. (in the top-sole direction). The product of the length and width is greater than 14 in2 considering the maximum length is 6 inches and the maximum width is 6 inches. Tang et al. notes that alternate alignment means can be used (See Paragraph 0035) but does not disclose the volume of the putterhead and putterhead having alignment element having parallel edges the distance of a golf ball diameter. Kato disclose a putterhead having a volume of 5 to 100 cm3 (See Paragraph 0024). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the above volume, as taught by Kato, in order to provide adequate impact absorption. Ashcraft discloses putterhead having an alignment element thereon wherein the alignment element takes on a number of different profiles. One profile includes a pair of parallel edges spaced apart from each other and a being perpendicular to the striking surface laterally offset from the face center (See Figures 6B). Ashcraft also shows the alignment element being the same size of a golf ball (See Figure 2). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an alignment element with parallel edges spaced to the diameter of the golf ball, as taught by Ashcraft, in order to properly align a golf putt. Regarding claim 2, Tang et al. discloses the center of gravity of the putter head being 0.25 to 1 inch from the external surface of the sole (See Paragraph 0028). Since the center of gravity is less than the height of the putterhead, it is inherent that the putterhead would have a height greater than 0.8 inch. Regarding claim 3, see the above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 4, see the above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Tang et al. discloses the top surface being planar (See Figures 1 and 4). Regarding claim 6, Ashcraft discloses the alignment element having a geometric center that lies in a virtual vertical plane that is perpendicular to the striking surface and passes through the face center. Regarding claim 7, see the above regarding claim 1. In addition, Tang et al. discloses a central elongated member extending from the rear of the striking wall. Tang et al. further discloses the central elongated member having a width w” of 1 to 3.0 inches (See Paragraph 0031). Regarding claim 8, see the above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 9, see the above regarding claim 3. Regarding claim 10, see the above regarding claim 6. Regarding claim 11, see the above regarding claim 1. In addition, Tang et al. discloses a first and second alignment element on the top surface thereof and notes that alternative alignment elements may be utilized thereon (See Paragraph 0033-0035). Regarding claim 12, see the above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 13, see the above regarding claim 2. Regarding claim 14, see the above regarding claim 3. Regarding claim 15, see the above regarding claim 4. Regarding claim 16, see the above regarding claim 5. Regarding claim 17, see the above regarding claim 6. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see argument with respect to moment of inertia, filed 8/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tang et al. (US 2006/0094522). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 06, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 28, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594470
Irons with optimized face
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576315
CLUBHEADS FOR IRON-TYPE GOLF CLUBS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569730
GOLF CLUB HAVING AN ADJUSTABLE WEIGHT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569731
GOLF CLUB
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569728
GOLF CLUB INCLUDING COMPOSITE MATERIAL WITH COLOR COATED FIBERS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+2.9%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1316 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month