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) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiraly et al. (USPN 8951138) in view of Nielson et al. (USPN 10035049) and Gobush et al. (GB 2388427A).
Regarding claim 27, Kiraly discloses a club head having striking face, sole portion, toe portion, heel portion, rearward portion, and hosel. The club head also includes at least two tracking markers having a retroreflective surface more reflective than the remainder of the club head. Kiraly et al. does not discloses the type of club head, the marker dimension, the volume of the club head, peak crown height, center of gravity location, trailing edge distance, and an adjustable hosel. Neilson et al. discloses a club head having a crown, sole, toe, heel, adjustable hosel (FCT) 22, and rearward portion wherein the club head has a volume, peak crown height, and center of gravity coordinate. The club head has a volume of 110 to 600 cm3 (See Column 15, lines 42 through 56), a peak crown height of at least 62mm (See Column 23, lines 17 through 34), a Zup CG of less than 27.5mm (See Column 23, lines 35 through 40), and a CG delta-1 dimension of 9 to 30mm (See Column 29, lines 40-44, and Column 33, lines 13 through 34). Neilson also discloses that the weight track has a maximum length of 10 to 120mm (See Paragraph bridging columns 34 and 35), which implies that the distance between the leading edge and trailing edge is at least greater than 120mm. It should be noted that Neilson et al. disclose a wood-type club head which has a curved striking face due to bulge radius and roll radius. It should further be noted that Kiraly et al. is not limited to a type of club head. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a club head of the above dimension, as taught by Neilson et al., in order to provide high moments of inertia while lowering the center of gravity. Gobush et al. discloses a performance measuring system wherein a club head has tracking markers thereon. The tracking marker have a diameter of 0.05 to 0.25 inches, or 1.27mm to 6.35mm (See Page 22, lines 4 through 11). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the markers of the above dimension, as taught by Gobush et al., in order to allow the system to detect the marker.
Claim(s) 28-35, 39, 40, 44, 47, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art applied to claim 27 above, in view of Lin (US 2009/0005191).
Regarding claim 28, the prior art applied to claim 27 above does not disclose a cover over the tracking markers. Lin discloses a club head having a substrate and cover wherein markers are located under the cover and on the substrate. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the trackers below a cover, as taught by Lin, in order to protect the markers from damage. Further, it should be noted that Kiraly et al. discloses having two trackers.
Regarding claim 29, see the above regarding claim 27 regarding the peak crown height. Applicant does not disclose why having the marker surface area of less than 10% of the face area is critical in attaining the invention. Kiraly et al. discloses a tracking marker of sufficient size to be identified. Also, the applicant notes that the tracking markers can be of any shape and size (See paragraph 0099). In light of the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the face area occupancy to be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 30, Lin discloses the cover being sandblasted (See Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 31, Kiraly et al. discloses the tracking markers having reflectivity greater than a surrounding face reflectivity (See Column 6, lines 60through 64). Applicant does not disclose why the percentage of reflectivity is critical to attain the invention. As noted above, the tracking markers of Kiraly et al. are of a reflectivity that contrasts enough such that it is distinguished from the surrounding face; therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the reflectivity percentage to be an obvious choice of design.
Regarding claim 32, Applicant does not disclose why having the marker surface area of less than 5% of the face area is critical in attaining the invention. Kiraly et al. discloses a tracking marker of sufficient size to be identified. Also, the applicant notes that the tracking markers can be of any shape and size (See paragraph 0099). In light of the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the face area occupancy to be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 33, see the above regarding claim 27 with respect to the marker dimension. Applicant does not disclose why having the marker surface area of less than 3% of the face area is critical in attaining the invention. Kiraly et al. discloses a tracking marker of sufficient size to be identified. Also, the applicant notes that the tracking markers can be of any shape and size (See paragraph 0099). In light of the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the face area occupancy to be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 34, Applicant does not disclose why having the marker surface area of 1.3 to 5% of the face area is critical in attaining the invention. Kiraly et al. discloses a tracking marker of sufficient size to be identified. Also, the applicant notes that the tracking markers can be of any shape and size (See paragraph 0099). In light of the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the face area occupancy to be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 35, Applicant does not disclose why having the marker surface non-circular is critical to attaining the invention. Kiraly et al. discloses a tracking marker being circular. Also, the applicant notes that the tracking markers can be of any shape and size (See paragraph 0099). In light of the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the shape of the tracking markers to be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 36, Kiraly et al. discloses the light used for the markers being infrared light which inherently has a wavelength of 780nm to 1mm (See USPN 7497780 Column 4, lines 4 through 30).
Regarding claim 39, Neilson et al. discloses inertia about the Ixx being at least 400 kg-mm2 and inertia about the Izz of at least 510 kg-mm2 (See Paragraph bridging columns 33 and 34). Based in the values of Ixx and Izz, the summation is greater than 780 kg-mm2.
Regarding claim 40, Kiraly et al. discloses a tracking marker in a lower toe portion, upper toe portion, and heel portion (See Figure 3C).
Regarding claim 44, Neilson et al. discloses the curved strike face made of a non-metallic material (See Column 38, lines 51 through 56).
Regarding claim 45, Lin discloses the cover having a thickness of 0.8mm(See Paragraph 0070). It should be noted that the non-metallic strike face would be under the cover.
Regarding claim 47, Kiraly et al. discloses the scorelines not overlapping the tracking markers. (See Figure 3C).
Regarding claim 53, Kiraly et al. disclose that a tracking marker can be placed on the hosel (See Column 7, lines 40 through 59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 46, 48-52, 54-57 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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