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) 1-6, 9, 11-14, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100430329 B1).
Regarding claim 1, KR 100430329 discloses a club head having a body and a faceplate. The faceplate is made of a metal composite metal construction having a first layer 13 made of a metallic material, a second layer 15 made of a fiber-reinforced composite material, and a third layer 16 made of a metallic material. The applicant does not disclose why thickness of the third layer being less than half the thickness of the first layer is critical in attaining the invention. KR 100430329 notes that the layering reduces weight, increases the sweet spot while maintaining strength and robustness. Applicant notes that the thickness of the first and third layers can be the same or different (See Paragraph 0104). It would appear that the thickness does not affect the performance of the faceplate (See Gardner v. TEC 725 F2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found the thickness of the layering to be an obvious choice of design.
Regarding claim 2, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, see the above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, KR 100430329 discloses the first layer having a thickness of 0.0050 to 0.04 inches.
Regarding claim 5, see the above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, see the above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, KR 100430329 discloses the first and third layers made of the same material.
Regarding claim 11, KR 100430329 discloses the fiber reinforced composite material having two or more layers. Since the material is two or more sheet, it is presumed that the sheets are laminated together before attaching to the metallic layers.
Regarding claim 12, see the above regarding claim 1. In addition, the applicant does not disclose why thickness of the first layer being greater than the thickness of the second layer and the second layer being greater than the thickness of the third layer is critical in attaining the invention. KR 100430329 notes that the layering reduces weight, increases the sweet spot while maintaining strength and robustness. Applicant notes that the thickness of the first and third layers can be the same or different (See Paragraph 0104). It would appear that the thickness does not affect the performance of the faceplate (See Gardner v. TEC 725 F2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found the thickness of the layering to be an obvious choice of design.
Regarding claim 13, see the above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, The thickness of the metal-composite-metal construction is 0.110 inches (See Example 1).
Regarding claim 17, see the above regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, see the above regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, KR 100430329 discloses multi-directional fibers since the fibers are 45-135 degrees orientations.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100430329 B1 in view of Myrhum et al. (US 2012/0289363).
Regarding claim 7, KR 100430329 does not disclose the second layer peripheral edge being offset from the first and third layers peripheral edge. Myrthum et al. discloses a club head having a multi-material face wherein the peripheral edge of the second layer is offset from the peripheral edge of the first and third layers (See
Figures 36A and 36B). Myrhum et al. discloses the offset peripheral edge used for attaching the face (See Paragraphs 0114 and 0115). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the peripheral edge of the second layer to be offset from the peripheral edges of the first and third layers, as taught by Myrhum et al., in order to facilitate attachment of the face to the club head body.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant does not disclose why the specific offset distance is critical in order to attain the invention. Myrhum et al. discloses the offset essential for assembling the face to the club head body. The applicant further discloses a number of dimensions that achieve the same result. In light of the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the offset distance to be an obvious choice of design.
Regarding claim 15, see the above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, see the above regarding claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100430329 B1 in view of Nishigaki et al. (USPN 4630826).
Regarding claim 10, KR 100430329 does not disclose the fiber oriented between 0 to 45 degrees of the z-axis. Nishigaki et al. discloses a club head made of a composite block wherein the fibers 1 are oriented in the front-to-back orientation (See Figures 1A and 1B and Figure 8). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the fibers oriented 0 degrees of the z-axis, as taught by Nishigaki et al., in order to increase the compressive strength of the face. IT should also be noted that Nishigaki et al. shows the club head having a loft angle wherein the z-axis is perpendicular to the loft angle since the z-axis is in the front-to-back direction (See Figures 6-8).
Regarding claim 18, see the above regarding claim 10.
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