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
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumble et al. (Re. 33,735) (hereafter Rumble) in view of Gerlach (US 5,251,896) and Cowdery (US 1,670,530).
With respect to claim 12, Rumble teaches a golf club shaft (10) comprising a tip end (14), and a butt end (12) wherein the golf club shaft includes a plurality of extending portions each having an axial directional length of greater than 25 mm (1 inch +), and a plurality of transition portions each having an axial directional length of less than or equal to 25 mm and each having an outer diameter changing by 0.3 mm or more (0.012”), each of the transition portions connects two of the extending portions, and the extending portions include at least one intermediate portion that connects two of the transition portions (figures 1 and 3A; and column 2, line 47-column 4, line 50); and wherein the number of the transition portions is greater than or equal to 3, the at least one intermediate portion comprises a plurality of intermediate portions, and the number of the intermediate portions is greater than or equal to 2 (figures 1 and 3A; and column 2, line 47-column 4, line 50).
With respect to claim 12, Rumble does not teach a golf club shaft comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers; and the transition portions each have an inner surface taper ratio of less than 0.3 mm/25 mm; and wherein each of all of the intermediate portions has a shaft wall thickness increasing toward the tip end.
However, Gerlach teaches a golf club shaft comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers (title; and column 6, line 17-21); and a fiber reinforced golf club shaft that has a constant cross-sectional cavity over the entire shaft length (column 3, lines 57-63, column 4, lines 61-column 5, line 9; and claim 8).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the constant cross-sectional cavity over the entire shaft length as taught by Gerlach on the collective golf club Rumble and Bolton in order to obtain a strong, lightweight, and flexible golf club with the desired flex point.
While, Cowdery teaches wherein each of all of the section/portions of the shaft has a shaft wall thickness increasing toward the tip end (figures; page 2, line 77-93; page 2, line 117-page 3, line 55; and claim 4). Note that Cowdery forms a shaft with sections/portions that have progressively smaller diameters and increased wall thicknesses as the tip end of the shaft is approached.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the increasing wall thicknesses toward the tip end as taught by Cowdery on the intermediate portions of Rumble in order to obtain the desired diameters and/or strength throughout the intermediate portion(s), and achieve the desired weight distribution of the golf club.
With respect to claim 13, Rumble teaches wherein at least one of the intermediate portions has an outer surface taper ratio smaller than outer surface taper ratios of all of the transition portions (figures 1 and 3A; and column 2, line 47-column 4, line 50).
With respect to claim 17, Gerlach teaches wherein an inner surface taper ratio over an entire length of the golf club shaft is smaller than 0.3 mm/25 mm (column 3, lines 57-63, column 4, lines 61-column 5, line 9; and claim 8).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumble, Gerlach, and Cowdery as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of JP-5824673A (hereafter JP ‘673).
With respect to claim 15, Rumble, Gerlach, and Cowdery do not teach wherein each of the transition portions has a shaft wall thickness decreasing toward the tip end.
However, JP ‘673 teaches a transition portion that has a shaft wall thickness decreasing toward the tip end (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a transition portion with a decreasing wall thickness toward the tip end as taught by JP ‘673 on the collective golf club of Rumble, Gerlach, and Crowdery in order to obtain the desired strength and weight distribution of the golf club.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Cowdery discloses "an intermediate stepped portion comprising at least six integrally joined sections of progressively less and less diameters preceding from handle toward the tip, the shoulders formed at the junctions between the sections being rounded, the wall thicknesses being progressively increased in sections nearer the tip." See claim 4. However, Cowdery does not disclose each of all of the intermediate portions has a shaft wall thickness increasing toward the tip end, as required by claim 12. In this regard, Cowdery relies on a configuration in which the wall thicknesses are progressively increased in sections nearer the tip, as discussed above. In other words, in Cowdery, the difference in wall thickness is between different sections, not the distribution of wall thickness within a single section.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The process of figure 5 and page 2, line 117-page 3, line 55 of Cowdery forms a shaft with sections/portions that have progressively smaller diameters and increased wall thicknesses as the tip end of the shaft is approached. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the increasing wall thicknesses toward the tip end as taught by Cowdery on the intermediate portion(s) of Rumble in order to obtain the desired diameters and/or strength throughout the intermediate portion(s), and achieve the desired weight distribution of the golf club.
The applicant alleges unexpected results, but has not persuasively argued and/or provided evidence of unexpected results that are commensurate in scope with the claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are allowed.
Claims 18-20 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
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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/KILEY S STONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights