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) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuth (USPN 7273421) in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2004-195106).
Regarding claim 1, Knuth discloses a club head having a striking face 100, crown 300, sole 200, heel, toe, and hosel (See Figure 3). The sole is configured to join the club head with a shaft. The striking face has a face center and a variable thickness profile having a planar front surface and non-planar rear surface. An X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis extend through the face center of the striking face wherein the X-axis is a horizontal axis with a positive direction toward the heel, the Y-axis is a vertical axis with a positive direction toward the crown, and the Z-axis being orthogonal to both the Y and X axes with a positive direction toward the front to the club head. It should also be noted that the X, Y, and Z axes are center ed at a center of gravity of the club head. The variable thickness profile includes a central region A having a constant thickness, a heel region B1, and a toe region B2. Figure 8A-8C outlines the striking face wherein the heel region decreases in thickness from an upper toe region towards the lower heel portion and the toe region decreases in thickness from an upper heel portion towards a lower toe portion. This is due to a transition region C1 and C2 extending between the heel and toe regions of the striking face. Knuth does not disclose the complimentary angles of the toe and heel regions being different. Yoshida discloses a club head having a striking face with a variable thickness. Figure 10 shows the central portion of the thickness has a constant thickness and is configured in a V-shape. In addition, Figure 10 shows the complimentary angles varying. Applicant does not disclose why the relationship of the complimentary angles are critical in order to attain the invention. Knuth shows complimentary angle being similar and Yoshida shows complimentary angle that slightly vary. Both note the striking face improving the carry of the golf ball. In light of no showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the complimentary angles to be an obvious choice of design.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant does not disclose why having the central region having a bottom angle of 20 degrees is critical in order to attain the invention. Knuth discloses a V-shape central region wherein the bottom angle appears greater than 20 degrees due to Figure 8A showing a 90-degree line extending in the crown-sole direction such that the angle on each side of the 90-degree line appears closer to 45 degrees. Knuth discloses the club head enhancing deformation while reducing cracking and material failure wherein Knuth show the central region being V-shaped. Based on the structure set forth by Knuth, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the bottom angle to be an obvious choice of design in order to achieve the same results set forth by Knuth.
Regarding claim 4, see the above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, see the above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Knuth discloses the central region, made of the upper 110 and lower center portion 130, having a thickness of 0.05 to 0.20 inches, 1.27 to 5.08mm (See Column 4, lines 56 through 67).
Regarding claim 9, see the above regarding claim 8. In addition, Knuth discloses the heel region having a thickness of 0.04 to 0.1 inch, 1.02 to 2.54mm (See Column 4, lines 56 through 67).
Regarding claim 10, see the above regarding claim 8. In addition, Knuth discloses the toe region having a thickness of 0.04 to 0.1 inch, 1.02 to 2.54mm (See Column 4, lines 56 through 67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 16-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot. After further consideration, the indicated allowability of claim 7 has been withdrawn. In light of the further consideration, the above rejection has been furnished.
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
Prosecution Insights