DETAILED ACTION
Priority
A priority date of 4/17/20 is given to independent claims 1 and 15 based on the filing of parent application 16/852,330.
Claim 8 and its dependents get a filing date of this current application because the terms “warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched” are not present in the specification. However, they are present in the claims, and the claims are considered part of the original disclosure. As such, claims 8-14 receive a date priority date of 3/6/24.
Of note, the priority chain is current app 18/597,082 is a CON of 18/113,802 which is a DIV or 16/852,330. The problem with this priority chain is that parent applicant 16/852,330 had 241 paragraphs. Both 18/597,082 and 18/113,802 have 244 paragraphs. As such, the specification between 16/852,330 and 18/113,802 has changed (i.e. three paragraphs have been added to the latter application). As such, application 18/113,802 should have correctly been listed as a CIP of 16/852,330 in the priority chain.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/26/26. The Examiner notes that applicant has specifically elected Figs. 47-50 for prosecution.
Applicant has asked the Examiner to include Figs. 51-54 with the elected species of Figs. 47-50. The Examiner respectfully declines. Fig. 51 appears to show a solid back rear surface with the lattice sandwiched in between the front striking face and a solid rear surface. Fig. 52 is a close-up of Fig. 51. This is a different embodiment than Figs. 47-50 that show a lattice structure extending all along the rear surface. Figs. 53 and 54 show a solid top line that is also distinct from Figs. 47-50. Figs. 47-50 show a lattice structure extending along the top line.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the language “warped, twisted, distorted, curved, or stretched” of claim 8 is not present in the specification. The term “beam” as it relates to the lattice and the terms “circular” and “elliptical” as it relates to the beam of claim 12 are not present. The terms “constant” and “tapered” as it relates to the “beams” in claim 13 are not present. The term “non-metal” of claim 4 and 14. The Examiner assumes applicant has support for these limitations based on the filing of the original claims.
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. Applicant, by way of election, has made clear that they believe that Figs. 47-50 show all of the features of claims 1-17, 19, and 20 (because they have only withdrawn one claim from consideration). As such, the Examiner looks to Figs. 47-50 only when looking for the claimed features. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
All of the potential alternatives of claim 1 need to be shown including the lattice structure varying in “thickness”, “shape of the plurality of segments”;
the “flow path” of claim 1;
“a plurality of apertures formed in the body” of claim 1;
“the lattice structure enclosed by the body” of claim 3;
“a plurality of apertures extending into the external surface” of claim 8;
All of the alternatives of claim 8 including “warped, twisted, and distorted”;
“the lattice structure is enclosed by the external surface” of claim 11;
the beams having a “cross sectional shape selected from a group consisting of circular and elliptical” of claim 12;
the beams having a diameter “that is selected from a group consisting of constant and tapered” of claim 13;
the lattice structure extending “below the first plane” of claim 15; and
all of the claimed cell shapes in claim 20 including “pentagonal, hexagonal, oval, circle, and gyroid” need to be shown.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 claims “a second center of gravity is defined by the golf club head including the lattice structure, and a location of the second center of gravity is different from a location of the first center of gravity” (emphasis added). There is no first center of gravity claimed in claim 15 (i.e. there is no antecedent basis). As such, the claim makes no sense. The Examiner also notes that applicant appears to be claiming centers of gravity based on inclusion and exclusion of the lattice structure (the Examiner is only guessing as claim 15 does not mention a first center of gravity). However, claiming the center of gravity without the lattice structure is claiming an intermediate product that is separate from the finished product as claimed in claim 15 (it could be argued it is not an intermediate product, but a separate product altogether). As such, the claim would be indefinite even if the first center of gravity was properly recited in claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronenberg et al. (herein “Kronenberg”; US Pub. No. 2014/0274458 A1) in view of Weaver (US Pub. No. 2010/0167839 A1) and in further view of Davis et al. (herein “Davis”; US Pub. No. 2015/0328512 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kronenberg discloses a golf club head component (abstract), comprising a body defining an internal cavity (Fig. 8 and pars. [0058] and [0070]); an aperture formed in the body (par. [0058]) a lattice structure disposed within the internal cavity of the body (Fig. 8 and pars. [0058] and [0070]); and a flow path that extends through the lattice structure and the aperture (Fig. 8 and pars. [0058] and [0070]; noting a flow path as it allows the leftover powder to flow out), wherein the lattice structure comprises a plurality of segments and a plurality of unit cells (Figs. 8 and 9; noting this is obvious). It is noted that Kronenberg does not specifically disclose a plurality of apertures. However, Kronenberg does disclose the use of at least one hole or aperture to create a flow path (par. [0058]). In addition, Weaver discloses the ability to use a plurality of apertures formed in the body to create a flow path (Fig. 7, item 107 and par. [0074]; clearly stating that “one or more holes” may be used). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kronenberg to use a plurality of apertures as taught by Weaver because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a golf club head with one hole and a golf club with more than one hole) according to known methods (using multiple holes in the former head) to yield predictable results (the ability to use more than one hole, the more than one hole allowing a flow path to the interior to allow for removal of internal material). Finally, it is noted that the combined Kronenberg and Weaver do not specifically disclose wherein the lattice structure varies in at least one of a thickness, a size, or a shape of the plurality of segments, a unit cell density, or a unit cell shape at various locations. However, Kronenberg clearly discloses the use of a lattice structure in the golf club (abstract and Fig. 8). In addition, Davis discloses the use of lattice structures in sports equipment (abstract) wherein the lattice structure varies in at least one of a thickness, a size, or a shape of the plurality of segments, a unit cell density, or a unit cell shape at various locations (Fig. 8 and/or pars. [0034]-[0037] and [0047-[0049]; making obvious at least “size”, “shape”, and “unit cell density” based on required stiffness). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kronenberg and Weaver to make the lattice structure vary in at least one of a thickness, a size, or a shape of the plurality of segments, a unit cell density, or a unit cell shape at various locations as taught by Davis because doing so would be use of a known technique (changing lattice cell density and thus size and shape to create a higher strength and stiffness in certain regions) to improve a similar product (sporting equipment in the form of a golf club with a lattice structure, the golf club known to endure impact around the locations of the face center) in the same way (changing lattice cell density and thus size and shape to create a higher strength and stiffness in regions of impact, more notably, around locations of the face center – see Davis: par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that the lattice structure defines a plurality of cutouts that are in fluid communication with the flow path (Kronenberg: par. [0058] and Figs. 8-9; noting this is obvious and noting the latter language would be functionally possible given the combined structure).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that the lattice structure is enclosed by the body/external surface (Kronenberg: Fig. 8 and par. [0070]; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that the lattice structure is unitary with the body (Kronenberg: par. [0057]; noting a “one piece” “unitary” body makes this obvious).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that the lattice structure is formed of a metal material (Kronenberg: pars. [0037]-[0048]; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 7, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that the lattice structure is located behind a front face (Fig. 8 and pars. [0067] and Figs. 5-7; noting this is obvious as a lattice behind the face is specifically shown in Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 8, Kronenberg discloses a golf club head component (abstract), comprising: an external surface (Fig. 8 and par. [0070]; noting the outer surface); a lattice structure comprising a plurality of voids (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9; noting this is obvious); an aperture extending into the external surface (par. [0058]), wherein at least one of the plurality of apertures communicates with at least one of the plurality of voids (par. [0058] and Fig. 8; noting this is obvious, as the hole allows excess “powder” that is not sintered to be removed), wherein the lattice structure is at least partially bounded by the external surface (Fig. 8 and par. [0070]), wherein the lattice structure comprises a region with a characteristic selected from the group consisting of warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched (Fig. 8; clearly showing a “curved” outer region, so it would be obvious that the internal lattice structure is also curved). It is noted that Kronenberg does not specifically disclose a plurality of apertures. However, Kronenberg does disclose the use of at least one hole or aperture to create a flow path (par. [0058]). In addition, Weaver discloses the ability to use a plurality of apertures formed in the body to create a flow path (Fig. 7, item 107 and par. [0074]; clearly stating that “one or more holes” may be used). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kronenberg to use a plurality of apertures as taught by Weaver because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a golf club head with one hole and a golf club with more than one hole) according to known methods (using multiple holes in the former head) to yield predictable results (the ability to use more than one hole, the more than one hole allowing a flow path to the interior to allow for removal of internal material). Finally, alternatively, it is noted that the combined Kronenberg and Weaver do not specifically disclose wherein the lattice structure comprises a region with a characteristic selected from the group consisting of warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched. However, Kronenberg clearly discloses the use of a lattice structure in the golf club (abstract and Fig. 8). In addition, Davis discloses the use of lattice structures in sports equipment (abstract) wherein the lattice structure comprises a region with a characteristic selected from the group consisting of warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched (Fig. 8 and par. [0047]; noting the left side is clearly “stretched” , i.e. lengthened, as compared to the right side). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kronenberg and Weaver to make the lattice structure comprise a region with a characteristic selected from the group consisting of warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched as taught by Davis because doing so would be use of a known technique (changing lattice cell density and thus size and shape by stretching the lattice structure to create a higher strength and stiffness in certain regions) to improve a similar product (sporting equipment in the form of a golf club with a lattice structure, the golf club enduring impact around the face center) in the same way (changing lattice cell density and thus size and shape by stretching the lattice structure to create a higher strength and stiffness in regions of impact, more notably, around the face center – see Davis: pars. [0047]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that each of the plurality of apertures communicates with at least one of the plurality of voids (Kronenberg: par. [0058] and Figs. 8-9 and Weaver: Fig. 7, item 107 and par. [0074]; noting this is obvious and noting the latter language would be functionally possible given the combined structure).
Regarding claim 11, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that the lattice structure comprises a plurality beams that vary in at least one of a thickness, a size, or a shape at various locations (Davis: Fig. 8; noting the size/length of the beams on the right are longer than the left because the left side is compressed; Fig. 6; noting the outside beams are thicker than the inside beams; Fig. 1; noting the thickness at the beam X intersection is thicker than the normal beam thickness; Fig. 12 again showing longer size/length in the middle section for beams as compared to the left/right sections).
Regarding claim 12, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that the lattice structure comprises a plurality of beams, and wherein at least one beam of the plurality of beams has a cross sectional shape selected from the group consisting of circular and elliptical (Davis: par. [0039]; noting “struts of circular cross section” make obvious circular-shaped beams).
Regarding claim 13, the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis disclose that of the plurality of beams has a diameter that is selected from the group consisting of constant and tapered (Davis: Fig. 1; noting this makes obvious “constant” diameter as there is no variation in thickness across the beam).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronenberg et al. (herein “Kronenberg”; US Pub. No. 2014/0274458 A1) in view of Weaver (US Pub. No. 2010/0167839 A1) in view of Davis et al. (herein “Davis”; US Pub. No. 2015/0328512 A1) and in further view of Koehler et al. (herein “Koehler”; US Pub. No. 2020/0086386 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, it is noted that the combined Kronenberg, Weaver and Davis do not specifically disclose that the body is formed of a non-metal material. However, Kronenberg discloses that the body is formed from metal (par. [0036]). In addition, Koehler discloses a similar type of golf club that can be made from both metal and non-metal via a similar sintering process (par. [0039]; noting “silicon carbine” [sic], actually “silicon carbide” or “aluminum oxide”, are non-metals). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kronenberg, Weaver, and Davis to make the golf club from non-metal material as taught by Koehler because doing so would be combining prior art elements (making a golf club from metal powder, and making a golf club from non-metal powder) according to known methods (sintering the non-metallic powder to create the golf club) to yield predicable results (the continued ability to sinter a powder to create a golf club body, the body being a non-metallic powder).
Claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US Pat. No. 5,439,223) in view Kronenberg et al. (herein “Kronenberg”; US Pub. No. 2014/0274458 A1) and in further view of Davis et al. (herein “Davis”; US Pub. No. 2015/0328512 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi discloses a golf club head (Fig. 1), comprising: a front side having a front face (Fig. 11 below); a rear side (Fig. 11 below); a toe side; a heel side opposite the toe side; a top rail; a sole opposite the top rail; a hosel (Figs. 11-12; noting these are all obvious); and wherein: the golf club head defines a first plane that extends in a heel-toe direction that aligns with a first center of gravity defined by a solid configuration of golf club head (Figs. Fig. 11 below, as annotated; also noting this is completely imaginary); the void at least partially enclosed by the face, the rear side, and the sole (Fig. 11 below); a rear surface of the front face extends along a second plane at an angle relative to a sole-topline direction and intersects the first plane (Fig. 11 below, annotated); the void extends at least one of above or below the first plane relative to the sole-topline direction (Fig. 11 below; noting above); and the void extends between the second plane and the rear side (Fig. 11 below). It is noted that Kobayashi does not specifically disclose that a lattice structure including a plurality of unit cells and a plurality of cutouts, each unit cell comprising at least one cutout that is an absence of material, the lattice structure comprises a lattice volume and a lattice mass; and the lattice structure positioned as claimed. However, Kobayashi discloses the use of a void behind the face (Figs. 11 and 12). In addition, Kronenberg discloses a similar iron wherein a lattice structure including a plurality of unit cells and a plurality of cutouts (Figs. 8 and 9; noting this is obvious), each unit cell comprising at least one cutout that is an absence of material (Fig. 8 and 9; noting this is obvious), the lattice structure comprises a lattice volume and a lattice mass (Fig. 8 and 9; noting this is inherent); and the lattice structure positioned within an internal cavity or void (Fig. 8 and par. [0070]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kobayashi to use the lattice structure in the void as taught and suggested by Kronenberg because doing so would be use of a known technique (using a lattice structure internal to a golf club) to improve a similar product (a golf club with an internal void) in the same way (using a lattice structure internal in a golf club void, the lattice structure providing lightweight support behind the face). Finally, it is noted that the combined Kobayashi and Kronenberg do not specifically disclose that the lattice structure varies in unit cell density at one or more locations between the toe side and the heel side; the lattice structure varies in unit cell density at one or more locations between the sole and the top rail; the lattice structure varies in unit cell density at one or more locations between the front face and the rear side. However, the combined Kobayashi and Kronenberg make obvious the ability to use a lattice support in a cavity behind the face that extends up and down, forward to rearward, and heel to toe (see Kobayashi: Figs. 11 and 12, and Kronenberg: Fig. 8 and par. [0070]). In addition, Davis discloses the use of lattice structures in sports equipment (abstract) wherein the lattice structure varies in unit cell density (Figs. 8 and 12 and/or pars. [0034]-[0037] and [0047-[0049]). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that if the unit cell density varied in just one location in the lattice support structure as bodily incorporated into the combined Kobayashi and Kronenberg, it would meet all of the claimed limitations (i.e. it would lattice cell density would vary in all three directions as required). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Kobayashi and Kronenberg to vary the lattice structure unit cell density at least one location as taught by Davis because doing so would be use of a known technique (changing lattice cell density and thus size and shape to create a higher strength and stiffness in certain regions) to improve a similar product (sporting equipment in the form of a golf club with a lattice structure, the golf club enduring impact around the face center) in the same way (changing lattice cell density and thus size and shape to create a higher strength and stiffness in regions of impact, more notably, around the face center – see Davis: par. [0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the limitation would be obvious. The lattice structure would inherently create some additional weight in the upper portion as bodily incorporated into Kobayashi. The incorporation of the lattice would inherently shift the cg slightly upward so that it a club with a lattice would be inherently have a different cg location than a club having no lattice.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that the combined Kobayashi, Kronenberg, and Davis do not specifically disclose that a portion of the lattice structure is externally visible on the golf club head along one or more of the top rail, the rear side, the toe side, or the heel side. However, in a different embodiment, Kobayashi discloses a different golf club head wherein a rear cavity exists, but the cavity is open in the rear (Fig. 5). Consistent with Kronenberg, Fig. 6, it would have be obvious to a POSA that the lattice structure can continue to be used behind the face even with an open rear surface (see par. [0066]; noting the lattice can be used with only one outer side instead of two, i.e. sandwiched). Incorporation of the lattice structure into Kobayashi: Fig. 5 would result in a lattice structure that is ”externally visible on the golf club head along…the rear side” and would have been obvious to a POSA given the above citations and analysis.
Regarding claim 19, the combined Kobayashi, Kronenberg, and Davis disclose that the lattice structure comprises a plurality of segments and varies in at least one of a thickness, a size, or a shape of the plurality of segments (Davis: Fig. 8; noting the size/length of the beams on the right are longer than the left because the left side is compressed; Fig. 6; noting the outside beams are thicker than the inside beams; Fig. 1; noting the thickness at the beam X intersection is thicker than the normal beam thickness; Fig. 12 again showing longer size/length in the middle section for beams as compared to the left/right sections).
Regarding claim 20, the combined Kobayashi, Kronenberg, and Davis disclose that the plurality of unit cells define a unit cell shape that is at least one of a pentagonal shape, a hexagonal shape, an oval, a circle, a triangle, or a gyroid (Davis: pars. [0010]-[0011]; noting “hexagonal”).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMille et al. (herein “DeMille”; US Pat. No. 11,878,221 B1).
Given claim 8’s later priority date, claims 8-13 are also rejected over DeMille. The Examiner does not think it is coincidence that applicant’s claim 8 claims “warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched”, and this is the exact claim language used in the claim 1 of the DeMille patent. In fact, a lot of the language used in claims 8-14 appears to be substantially similar to the DeMille disclosure (see the claim mapping below). The remainder of the claim language is obvious given the DeMille claims themselves, and the entire disclosure of DeMille including the drawings (see Figs. 30-31).
Claim 9, see col. 10, lines 36-40
Claim 10, see Fig. 30
Claim 11, see col. 4, lines 25-46
Claim 12, see col. 4, lines 25-28
Claim 13, see col. 4, lines 25-28
Claim 14, see col. 3, line 67
DeMille (US Pat. No. 11,878,221 B1), published 1/23/24
Application 18/597,082, filed 3/6/24
1. A golf club head component comprising: an external surface; a lattice structure comprising a plurality of voids; and a plurality of port holes extending into the external surface, wherein at least one of the plurality of port holes communicates with at least one of the plurality of voids, and wherein the lattice structure is at least partially bounded by the external surface; wherein the lattice structure comprises a region with a characteristic selected from the group consisting of warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched.
8. (Original) A golf club head component, comprising:
an external surface;
a lattice structure comprising a plurality of voids; and
a plurality of apertures extending into the external surface,
wherein at least one of the plurality of apertures communicates with at least one of the
plurality of voids,
wherein the lattice structure is at least partially bounded by the external surface, and
wherein the lattice structure comprises a region with a characteristic selected from the
group consisting of warped, twisted, distorted, curved, and stretched.
2. The golf club head component of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of port holes communicates with at least one of the plurality of voids.
9. (Original) The golf club head component of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality
of apertures communicates with at least one of the plurality of voids.
3. The golf club head component of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure is completely enclosed by the external surface.
10. (Original) The golf club head component of claim 8, wherein the lattice structure is
enclosed by the external surface.
5. The golf club head component of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure comprises a plurality of beams, and wherein each of the plurality of beams has a cross sectional shape selected from the group consisting of circular and elliptical.
12. (Original) The golf club head component of claim 8, wherein the lattice structure
comprises a plurality of beams, and wherein at least one beam of the plurality of beams has a cross
sectional shape selected from the group consisting of circular and elliptical.
6. The golf club head component of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of beams has a diameter that is selected from the group consisting of constant and tapered.
13. (Original) The golf club head component of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality
of beams has a diameter that is selected from the group consisting of constant and tapered.
7. The golf club head component of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure is composed of a non-metal material.
14. (Original) The golf club head component of claim 8, wherein the golf club head
component is composed of a non-metal material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
4/22/26
Prosecution Insights