Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/513,375

GOLF CLUB AND GOLF CLUB HEAD STRUCTURES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
HUNTER, ALVIN A
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Karsten Manufacturing Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
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
Typical timeline
2y 3m
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
17.9%
-22.1% 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 §112
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 § 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. Claims 1-16 are 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 1, the adjustable weight is loosened and fastened along a longitudinal axis transverse the striking face in claim 1; however, claim 7 requires the adjustable weight to move in a high and forward direction or a low and rearward direction. Further claim 6 requires the track to be inclined toward the crown and extend from a rear towards the front. Transverse implies that the axis is 90 degrees of the striking surface, whereas the orientations of claim 6 and 7 are not. Does the applicant intend for the longitudinal axis to be generally transverse based on claims 6 and 7? In light of the above claim 1 is considered to be indefinite. Regarding claim 9, the adjustable weight is loosened and fastened along a longitudinal axis parallel to the striking face in claim 9; however, claim 15 requires the adjustable weight to move in a forward and center direction or a perimeter and rearward direction. Further claim 14 requires the track to be curved concave to the strike face. Parallel implies that the axis is in line with the striking surface, whereas the orientations of claim 14 and 15 are not. Does the applicant intend for the longitudinal axis to be generally parallel based on claims 14 and 15? In light of the above claim 9 is considered to be indefinite. Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are considered indefinite as being dependent from an indefinite claim. 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. Claims 1 and 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. (US 2008/0119303) in view of Noguchi et al. (JP 2007-267777). Regarding claim 1, Bennett et al. discloses a club head having a body having a striking face, crown, sole, rear, toeside leg, and heelside leg. The crown, sole, toeside leg and heelside leg form a void in a central region of the club head (See Figure 23). The crown includes a cover than covers the void. Bennett et al. also discloses an adjustable weight system having an adjustable weight 54 along a longitudinal axis transverse (90 degrees) the striking surface (See Figures 23 and 24). Bennett et al. does not disclose the weight being loosened and fastened in different locations along the longitudinal axis. Noguchi et al. discloses a club head having an adjustable weight system wherein the weight 14 can be loosened and fastened in different locations along a longitudinal axis (See Figures 9-14). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an adjustable weight system such that the weight can be loosened and fastened in different locations, as taught by Noguchi et al., in order to adjust the center of gravity and mass distribution of the club head. Regarding claim 8, Noguchi et al. discloses the weight held in position using friction fits. Claims 1 and 3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swisshelm (USPN 5497995) in view of Bennett et al. (US 2008/0119303). Regarding claim 1, Swisshelm discloses a club head having a body including a striking surface 22, crown 34, sole 38, front, rear 36, toeside leg 56, and heelside leg 58 (See Figures 1-10, 12, and 13). The crown, sole, heelside and toeside legs form a void in a central region of the club head. The crown includes a cover than covers the void. Swisshelm does not discloses the adjustable weighting system. Bennett et al. discloses a club head having a body having a striking face, crown, sole, rear, toeside leg, and heelside leg. Bennett et al. also discloses an adjustable weight system within a void having an adjustable weight 54 along a longitudinal axis transverse (90 degrees) the striking surface (See Figures 23 and 24). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an adjustable weighting system within the void having a weight that can be fastened and loosened along a longitudinal axis transverse to the striking surface, as taught by Bennett et al., in order to adjust the center of gravity and moment of inertia of the club head. Regarding claim 3, Swissholm discloses the club head made of a composite material (See Column 3, lines 52 through 67). Claims 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swisshelm (USPN 5497995) in view of Dimarco (USPN 7520820). Regarding claim 9, Swisshelm discloses a club head having a body including a striking surface 22, crown 34, sole 38, front, rear 36, toeside leg 56, and heelside leg 58 (See Figures 1-10, 12, and 13). The crown, sole, heelside and toeside legs form a void in a central region of the club head. The crown includes a cover than covers the void. Swisshelm does not disclose an adjustable weighting system within the void. Dimarco discloses a club head having a void wherein an adjustable weighting system is positioned within the void. The adjustable weighting system includes an adjustable weight 50 that can be loosened and fastened in different locations along a longitudinal axis parallel to the striking surface (See Figure 2). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an adjustable weighting system within the void having a weight that can be fastened and loosened along a longitudinal axis parallel to the striking surface, as taught by Dimarco, in order to adjust the center of gravity and moment of inertia of the club head. Regarding claim 11, Swisshelm discloses the club head being made of a composite material (See Column 3, lines 52 through 67). Regarding claim 12, Swisshelm does not disclose an adjustable weighting system being a track. Dimarco discloses an adjustable weighting system wherein the adjustable weight is slideable on a track (See Figure 2). Regarding claim 13, Dimarco discloses more than one stop along the track being that the weight can be positioned in any position along it. 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 17, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599820
WEIGHTED IRON SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
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
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

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

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month