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) 1-8, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US 2006/0160638) in view of Serrano et al. (USPN 10960278), Hedrick et al. (US 2002/0082111), Lu (USPN 8272973), and Little (US 2005/0227782).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses a putter having a head 310, shaft 370, and grip (See Paragraph 0036). The head includes a face 320, toe 340, heel 345, sole 350, top, and back. The putterhead is made of a single block of material (See Paragraph 0037). A sound slot 355 is formed in the head from the top to the sole and toe to the heel parallel to the face (See Figures 4-6 and Paragraph 0041 and 0042) and also perpendicular to the flange portion 336 which implies the slot having 90 degree angles also to tope, toe, heel, and sole (See Paragraph 0049). McCabe et al. notes that the loft angle of the striking face may be any desired degrees, positive to negative (See Paragraph 0043), thereby allowing the loft angle to be 0 degrees. McCabe does not disclose the weight of the club head, the material and weight of the shaft, the weight of the grip, and overall weight of the putter. Serrano et al. disclose a putterhead having a weight of 340-365 grams (See Column 3, lines 23 through 34). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the above weight, as taught by Serrano et al., in order to optimize the moment of inertia of the putterhead. Hedrick et al. discloses a shaft made of steel and graphite (See Paragraph 0029) wherein the shaft weighs 65 and 90 grams (See Paragraph 0042). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the shaft of the above construction, as taught by Hedrick et al., in order to improve performance characteristics. Lu discloses a golf grip wherein the grip weighs 45 to 120 grams (See Column 4, lines 22 through 39). In addition, Lu discloses the grip having two ridges forming a flat between them (See Figure 2 and 6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the grip of the above weight, as taught by Lu, in order to improve the balance and feel of the club head. Little discloses that a typical complete putter has a weight of 525 grams +/- 40 grams (See Paragraph 0032). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a putter weight the above amount, as taught by Little, in order to meet the weight of a typical putter.
Regarding claim 2, McCabe discloses a kerf along the sole extending between the toe and heel. It should be noted that a kerf is given its ordinary meaning which is a width of material removed by a cutting tool. In this instance, the sound slot would also constitute the kerf due to it have a width and length through the sole of the putterhead.
Regarding claim 3, McCabe discloses the head made of steel (See Paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 4, McCabe discloses a putterhead of sufficient width to place a slot between the face and rear of the putter and provide audible feedback. The instant invention does not show any improvement or unexpected results different from that of McCabe (See Paragraph 0041)(See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the putterhead of larger or smaller width so long as audible feedback is produced by the putterhead.
Regarding claim 5, McCabe discloses the overall shape of the head being substantially rectangular.
Regarding claim 6, one having ordinary skill in the art would see the color of the putter head to be printed matter. Applicant has not disclosed the color of the putterhead providing any functional addition to the invention (See In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the putterhead of any color so long as it is used to hit a golf ball.
Regarding claim 7, McCabe discloses a putterhead of sufficient width to place a slot between the face and rear of the putter and provide audible feedback. The instant invention does not show any improvement or unexpected results different from that of McCabe (See Paragraph 0041)(See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the putterhead of larger or smaller width so long as audible feedback is produced by the putterhead.
Regarding claim 8, McCabe discloses a putterhead of sufficient length to place a slot between the face and rear of the putter and provide audible feedback. The instant invention does not show any improvement or unexpected results different from that of McCabe (See Paragraph 0041)(See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the putterhead of larger or smaller length so long as audible feedback is produced by the putterhead.
Regarding claim 10, see the above regarding claim 1 in reference to the loft angle.
Regarding claim 12, one having ordinary skill in the art would see the color of the shaft to be a design choice. Applicant has not disclosed the color of the shaft providing any functional addition to the invention (See In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the shaft of any color so long as it facilitates swinging of the putterhead.
Regarding claim 13, see the above regarding claim 1. In addition, it is common practice to attach a shaft to the putter head, and a grip to the shaft to construct a putter.
Regarding claim 14, see the above regarding lcaim 1, in addition, Lu discloses the grip installed inline with the shaft which would imply that the grip has a 0 degree angle.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art applied to claim 1 above in view of Davenport et al. (USPN 5456464).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art applied to claim 1 above does not disclose an alignment aid. Davenport et al. discloses a putterhead having a single dot 22 on the top midway between the toe and heel and closer to the face than the back of the putter head (See Figure 5). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an alignment aid on the top of the putterhead, as taught by Davenport et al., in order to assist in aligning the putterhead with a golf ball.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art applied to claim 1 above in view of Jackson (The Modern Guide to Golf Clubmaking).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art applied to claim 1 above does not disclose the length of the putter being 35.25 inches. Jackson discloses that a putter of about 35 inches is typical (See Page 171). Applicant does not disclose criticality of the length being 35.25 inches in order to attain the invention. One skilled in the art would assume that the length claimed by the applicant would not perform any different from the typical putter length since the claimed length and the typical length of a putter are so close in range. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the club be about 35 inches, as taught by Jackson, in length due to this being a typical length for a putter.
Double Patenting
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
With respect to claim 13, It would be inherent from claim 1 that the head, shaft, and grip are constructed and assembled.
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