DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on May 18, 2026. Claims 1 - 9 are presented for examination. Claim 1 - 9 are rejected and this Office Action is being made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 18, 2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. Based on the amendments to overcome the objections to the drawings, the amendments to overcome the objections to the specification, and the amendments to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, all objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Claim 1 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, The applicant argues that, as described in the specification, the three-dimensional lattice environment is not a structure of the golf club head, but rather, a design tool for use in a 3D model of a golf club head.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the argument is towards the three-dimensional lattice environment is not a structure of the golf club head, the claims recite generating the three-dimensional lattice environment, and inlaying the environment into the design model of the golf club head. This language in the claim presents that the lattice environment is implemented into the golf club head model design, and appears to provide that the lattice environment is a part of the golf club head model design, with Dai disclosing the features in the rejections. It is recommended for clarification in the claimed language if the applicant wants to distinguish the lattice environment not being a part of the golf club head, including clarification regarding the “inlaying the environment…” limitation to provide a clear distinction between the prior art of Dai (CN 110665198 A) and the claimed invention.
In addition, the applicant argues that a lattice array is formed by a plurality of intersecting reference planes defined within the lattice environment, in reference to paragraph [0111] of the specification.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed limitations recite this feature. While the specification in paragraph [0111] provides details of how the lattice array is formed, the claimed limitations recite the lattice array including a plurality of nodes and beams. It is recommended that if the claimed limitations are to disclose additional details of how the lattice array is formed compared to the teachings of Dai, it is recommended that clarification of the invention is amended from the specification into the claimed limitations, to provide a distinction of how the lattice array is formed from the teachings provided by the prior art of Dai.
In addition, the applicant argues that the prior art of Dai does not teach orienting a lattice array according to user information, because the motivation of teaching in the Office Action for Dai in terms of arranging lattice bars in a straight line to reduce efforts to model 3D drawings and to save on manpower, and if the straight-line configuration of lattice bars is construed as orienting a lattice array, the orientation is performed for manufacturing purposes, not according to any user information.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for the teaching is typically included in a 103 obvious rejection with a combination of references with regards a motivation to combine. The rejection for claim 1 is based on teaching from the prior art of Dai, which does not require a motivation, as the teachings found in Dai have been found to disclose the limitations of the claimed invention.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (CN 110665198 A), hereinafter “Dai”.
As per claim 1, Dai discloses:
a method of manufacturing a golf club, comprising receiving user information via a user interface (Dai, page 3, line 5 discloses obtaining characteristic information from a golfer.)
selecting at least one parameter of the golf club by a user, wherein the at least one parameter is selected from a plurality of parameters (Dai, page 3, line 6 discloses generating ball head parameter information based on the obtained information from the golfer, with page 3, lines 27 - 31 adds the information from the golfer includes swing habit parameter information, body parameter information, and appearance information.)
generating a design model of a golf club head defining a body based on user information or at least one parameter of the golf club in a design space (Dai, page 3, lines and 9 - 10 discloses generating a 3D ball head structure model based on ball head parameter information generated, which is based on the golfer information obtained.)
generating a three-dimensional lattice environment, the three-dimensional lattice environment including a first lattice array, wherein the first lattice array includes plurality of nodes and plurality of beams (Dai, page 5, lines 31 - 32 discloses a lattice structure formed from a formation of lattice bars, with FIG. 2 showing the structure in the golf club head.)
inlaying the three-dimensional lattice environment into the design model of the golf club head (Dai, page 5, lines 36 - 37 discloses FIG. 2, which shows the lattice bars forming a straight line to create the lattice structure.)
orienting the first lattice array of the three-dimensional lattice environment according to the user information (Dai, page 5, line 36 discloses FIG. 2, which shows the lattice bars forming a straight line to create the lattice structure, with page 5, lines 32 - 35 adds gaps formed between the lattice bars arranged based on the needs of the different golfers.)
adjusting, based on the user interface, at least a thickness, a shape, or a density of a lattice beam of the first lattice array (Dai, page 5, lines 32 - 35 adds an arrangement of the size and number of gaps between the lattice bars in the lattice structure based on altering of the emptiness of the ball striking section of the ball head.)
customizing the at least one parameter of the plurality of parameters based on at least a swing characteristic of the user or a location of center of gravity of the golf club head (Dai, page 5, lines 25 - 29 discloses gaps in the cavity structure if a golf head provided to adjust the center of gravity, and page 5, lines 35 - 38 adds the gaps obtained from the placement of lattice bars in the lattice structure of a golf head adjusted for different golfers to obtain the different centers of gravity in ball heads.)
printing, layer by layer using an additive manufacturing device, the golf club head including a lattice structure within an internal volume of a body (Dai, page 8, lines 1 - 25 discloses steps S2002 - S3001 regarding using a slice file of the ball head 3D structure model to print the golf head using additive manufacturing equipment, including printing different types of internal cavity structures that are connected, with page 5, lines 31 - 32 clarifying the inner cavity structure includes a lattice structure.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 110665198 A), and further in view of Soracco et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2013/0097050 A1), hereinafter “Soracco”.
As per claim 2, the prior art of Dai discloses the method of claim 1.
The prior art of Dai does not expressly disclose:
further including displaying the design model to the user via, a display screen to update the at least one parameters in real-time while the user makes the golf club head in the design space.
Soracco however discloses:
further including displaying the design model to the user via, a display screen to update the at least one parameters in real-time while the user makes the golf club head in the design space (Soracco, par [0006] discloses a user on a web browser or other interface, to provide information to generate data for fabricating individualized golf club components, including clubs, with par [0009] - [0010] discloses information includes a golfer’s physical characteristics (height, handedness), along with selecting attributes including center of gravity, lie angle, loft angle, toe height, etc., with par [0091] adding the changes of a user selection can be updated as the user choses the options to customize features.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the additive manufacturing of a golf club head with lattice structure teaching of Dai with the updates to selections a user presents when customizing golf club components based on their characteristics teaching of Soracco. The motivation to do so would have been because Soracco discloses the benefit of providing a process that allows a larger population of golfers to benefit from having individualized golf club components, which can increase their enjoyment of the game of golf (Soracco, par [0006]).
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 110665198 A), in view of Soracco et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2013/0097050 A1) and further in view of Day et al. (U.S. Patent 10,343,031 B1), hereinafter “Day”.
As per claim 3, the combination of Dai and Soracco discloses the method of claim 2.
The combination of Dai and Soracco does not expressly disclose:
wherein at least one of the plurality of nodes and at least one of the plurality of beams are connected to a wall of the body of the golf club head forming a connection point.
Day however discloses:
wherein at least one of the plurality of nodes and at least one of the plurality of beams are connected to a wall of the body of the golf club head forming a connection point (Day, col 6, ln 39 - 46 discloses FIG. 3, which shows a support member in the hollow body of the golf club head, attached from one portion of the golf club head to the opposite end of the golf club head.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the additive manufacturing of a golf club head with lattice structure teaching of Dai and the updates to selections a user presents when customizing golf club components based on their characteristics teaching of Soracco with the adjustment mechanism with attachment points on the golf club head teaching of Day. The motivation to do so would have been because Day discloses the benefit of including a removable weight to the attachment point to allow for an adjustment of a mass or mass distribution of the club heat (Day, col 11, ln10 - 15), as well as providing a golf club head with an openwork internal rib that reinforces regions of high strain, minimizing material fatigue and preventing early breakage of the club head (Day, Abstract, lines 7 - 10).
For claim 4: The combination of Dai, Soracco, and Day discloses claim 4: The method of claim 3, wherein
the first lattice array that protrudes beyond the connection points of the golf club head is removed from design space to form the lattice structure that is contained within the internal volume of the body (Dai, page 5, lines 36 - 37 discloses the lattice structure in which gaps formed between each lattice bars, with the amount of gaps adjusted based on the golfer, interpreted that the amount of lattice forming the gaps to be excessive and can be removed or rearranged.)
For claim 7: The combination of Dai, Soracco, and Day discloses claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising a step of:
providing cavities along a toe side of the body and a heel side of the body of the design model of the golf club head, the cavities configured to receive weights (Day, col. 7, ln 65 - 67 through col 8, ln 1 - 4 discloses the club head with an openwork structure to change the mass by providing repositionable weight features to adjust the mass.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the additive manufacturing of a golf club head with lattice structure teaching of Dai and the updates to selections a user presents when customizing golf club components based on their characteristics teaching of Soracco with the adjustment mechanism with attachment points on the golf club head teaching of Day. The motivation to do so would have been because Day discloses the benefit of including a removable weight to the attachment point to allow for an adjustment of a mass or mass distribution of the club heat (Day, col 11, ln10 - 15), as well as providing a golf club head with an openwork internal rib that reinforces regions of high strain, minimizing material fatigue and preventing early breakage of the club head (Day, Abstract, lines 7 - 10).
For claim 8: The combination of Dai, Soracco, and Day discloses claim 8, the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of
providing at least one sacrificial protrusion along the body of the golf club head, wherein the at least one sacrificial protrusion is positioned to aid in locating and aligning the golf club head for machining (Soracco, par[0050] discloses holes crated in club heads to mate the club head with other components, par [0053] - [0054] discloses spaces in an area where the interior of a club head is formed, creating a void, and once the void is formed, it can be filled with a material.)
wherein the at least one sacrificial protrusion is configured to be removed during manufacturing (Soracco, par [0060] discloses the golf club being fabricated, including constructed or individualized golf club components, including golf club heads.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the additive manufacturing of a golf club head with lattice structure teaching of Dai and the updates to selections a user presents when customizing golf club components based on their characteristics teaching of Soracco with the adjustment mechanism with attachment points on the golf club head teaching of Day, and the additional teaching of the voids produced in golf club head and filled before the golf club head is fabricated, also found in Soracco. The motivation to do so would have been because Soracco discloses the benefit of providing a process that allows a larger population of golfers to benefit from having individualized golf club components, which can increase their enjoyment of the game of golf (Soracco, par [0006]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 110665198 A), and further in view of Morales et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2018/0117424 A1), hereinafter “Morales”.
As per claim 5, the prior art of Dai discloses the method of claim 1.
The prior art of Dai does not expressly disclose:
generating at least one aperture along the body of the design model of the golf club.
Morales however discloses:
generating at least one aperture along the body of the design model of the golf club (Morales, par [0110] discloses aperture a golf club head including a plurality of apertures.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the additive manufacturing of a golf club head with lattice structure teaching of Dai with the apertures on the golf club teaching of Morales. The motivation to do so would have been because Morales discloses the benefit of providing apertures near the center of a face plate that aids in moving the excess powered material from the center towards to perimeter of the face place in a cell lattice to provide simplified removal (Morales, par [0122]).
For claim 6: The combination of Dai and Morales discloses claim 6: The method of manufacturing the golf club of claim 5, wherein
the at least one aperture is configured to remove debris trapped within the internal volume of the body (Morales, par [0118] discloses compressed air in the apertures used to remove excess powered material.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the additive manufacturing of a golf club head with lattice structure teaching of Dai with the apertures on the golf club teaching of Morales, and the additional teaching of using the apertures to remove excess powered material, also found in Morales. The motivation to do so would have been because Morales discloses the benefit of providing apertures near the center of a face plate that aids in moving the excess powered material from the center towards to perimeter of the face place in a cell lattice to provide simplified removal (Morales, par [0122]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 110665198 A), and further in view of Kroneberg et al (WO 2014144824 A1), hereinafter “Kroneberg”.
As per claim 9, the prior art of Dai discloses the method of claim 1.
The prior art of Dai does not expressly disclose:
further comprising a step of providing a channel along a rear side of the body of the design model of the golf club, the channel including a second lattice array.
Kroneberg however discloses:
further comprising a step of providing a channel along a rear side of the body of the design model of the golf club, the channel including a second lattice array (Kroneberg, par [58] discloses a lattice structure included in a hollow diameter of the shaft of the golf club, with [59] adds the 3D lattices formed between thin walls and can be manufactured using additive layer manufacturing.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the additive manufacturing of a golf club head with lattice structure teaching of Dai with the lattice structure in additional sections of the golf club teaching in Kroneberg. The motivation to do so would have been because Kroneberg discloses the benefit of the ability to generate a computer model of a golf club, ad instead of modifying existing parts, design parameters are determined to produce the computer model, and can be updated based on a user’s required specifications (Kroneberg, par [33]).
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 CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights