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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Milleman 2022/0088450
As to claim 1, Milleman shows a golf club head comprising a body portion 120 further comprising a striking face portion 102, a main body chassis having a sole portion 106 and a recess around a perimeter as shown;
PNG
media_image1.png
700
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A crown portion 122 wrapping around a skirt of said golf club head, forming at least a portion of said sole portion at 152a and b; wherein said crown portion further comprises a toe and heel internal crown patch 130, located internally at a toc skirt portion on the side of the crown portion, wherein a perimeter of said crown portion forms a parting line, separating
said crown portion of said body portion as shown in the annotated figure 4B above wherein said crown portion overlaps said body portion at said recess of said body
portion and wherein said parting line at least partially falls below said skirt. Said crown portion has a first density such as fiber reinforced composites [0060] and said body portion has a second
density of metal [0042] where said first density is less than said second density.
The density of claim 2 is set forth at [0053].
Where titanium alloys are known to range in density from 4.4-4.8 g/cc, claim 3 is shown at [0045].
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milleman as set forth above in view of Milleman 11,398,802.
While Milleman applied above does not discuss his crown thickness, from ‘802 he teaches that the crown thickness range from .025-.075 inches (.635 to 1.9mm) within the claimed range (col. 17, ln. 20). To have selected such a range in Milleman as taught by the art would have been obvious in order to design the club with the desired amount of strength and distribution of weight as desired.
Conclusion
Claims 8-13 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.
As to claims 8-13 and claims 14-20, while Milleman inherently has an internal and external radius to his skirt in the toe and heel, he does not discuss their sizes or any relationship between the two. Such does not appear taught in the prior art in clubs of such construction being recited in the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Pierce whose telephone number is (571)272-4414 and E-mail address is bill.pierce@USPTO.gov. For emergency assistance, supervisory assistance can be obtained with Nicholas Weiss at (571)270-1775.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, communication via email at the above address may be found more effective. Where current PTO internet usage policy does not permit an examiner to initiate communication via email, such are at the discretion of the applicant. However, without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me by responding to this inquiry by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
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).
/WILLIAM M PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights