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
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant moves rejected claim 4 into the independent claims. The claims remain rejected for the same reasons as stated in the previous rejection.
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) 1-3, 5-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Orazio US 6471602 in view of Backus US 1336671.
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.
However, D’Orazio does not teach that the club head is hollow and one or more air exit apertures located distal to the club face.
Backus teaches a hollow golf club with at least two apertures (11) 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 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 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 and 21-22, 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;
the one or more exit apertures are ¾ of an inch from the rear edge of the bottom of the club head.
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, the width of the club head being within the claimed ranges, or the location of the exit aperture 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).
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).
However, D’Orazio does not teach that the club head is hollow and one or more air exit apertures located distal to the club face.
Backus teaches a hollow golf club with at least two apertures (11) 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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