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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and 19 in the reply filed on 2/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in claim 4, the single cavity must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Orazio US 6471602.
Regarding claim 1, D’Orazio discloses a golf training the device comprising
a club head (26) attached to a shaft (22), wherein the shaft comprises a grip (24) located on the opposite end of the shaft from the club head, and
wherein the club head comprises a club face (42) comprising a ball striking portion and at least one structure (46, 50) which is adapted to misdirect a golf ball when the ball is struck by the club face at an undesired location.
Regarding claim 2, D’Orazio further discloses that the at least one structure which is adapted to misdirect a golf ball when the ball struck by the club face at an undesired location is one or more club face apertures opening to at least one cavity in the interior of the club head (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, D’Orazio further discloses that the at least one structure which misdirects a golf ball when struck by the club face at an undesired location comprises at least two club face apertures (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, D’Orazio discloses a method of practicing a golf swing, wherein the method comprises
striking a golf ball (col. 4 ln. 54-55) with a training device of claim 1 (see claim 1) and
observing the trajectory of the golf ball to determine proper placement of the club relative to the ball during a swing (col. 1 ln. 64-66, to aim the “sweet spot”), wherein the training device comprises
a club head attached to a shaft, wherein the shaft comprises a grip located on the opposite end of the shaft from the club head, and wherein the club head comprises a club face comprising a ball striking portion and at least one structure which is adapted to misdirect a golf ball when the ball is struck by the club face at an undesired location (see claim 1).
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) 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Orazio US 6471602 in view of Backus US 1336671.
Regarding claim 4, D’Orazio does not teach the limitations therein. However, Backus teaches a golf club with at least two apertures (11) opening to a single cavity (13) in the interior of the head portion and wherein the club head additionally includes one or more air exit apertures (14 and 15) located distal to the club face (Fig. 1). Backus so teaches in order to eliminate air drag (pg. 1 ln. 70-83). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the club head as taught by D’Orazio by utilizing a single cavity as taught by Backus in order to eliminate air drag.
Regarding claim 5, Backus further teaches that the one or more apertures located distal to the club face are located at the bottom of the club head (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6-11, the combination does not teach that
the one or more air exit apertures are each located between 1/8 inch (0.3 cm) and inch (0.6 cm) from an edge of the club face;
the combined area of the one or more club face apertures is 20 to 45 percent of the area of the club face;
the one or more club face apertures is 20 to 30 percent of the area of the club face;
the combined area of the one or more club face apertures is 31 to 40 percent of the area of the club face;
the combined area of the one or more club face apertures is 35 to 40 percent of the area of the club face; or
the club head is 4 to 4.5 inches (10.2 - 11.4 cm) wide and the ball striking portion is 1-1/4 inches (3.2 cm) to 2 inches (6.4 cm) wide.
It has been held, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the air exit apertures’ location, the combined area of the club face apertures, or the width of the club head being within the claimed ranges solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the club of the combination would perform equally well at striking a golf ball with increased accuracy and decreased drag within the ranges claimed, absent persuasive evidence that the particular ranges are significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the exit apertures’ location, combined area of the club face apertures and width of the club head as taught by the combination by utilizing the claimed ranges in order to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gordon US 3794328 and Lee US 5158296 for the apertures in the club face.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights