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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation set forth in claim 15 is already recited in claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 16 and 17 are also rejected as being dependent upon a non-limiting claim.
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) 13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shear (US 2007/0049417) in view of Myers et al. (US 2010/0151963).
Regarding claim 13, Shear discloses a club head having a striking face, crown, and sole. The sole forms the lower portion of the club head and includes a rear sole forming the aft portion of the sole and a frontal sole forming the frontal portion of the sole. The striking face is located at a frontal portion of the club head. The crown forms an upper portion of the club head hand extends rearward from the striking face. As shown in Figure 4C, the frontal sole portion includes a lower frontal sole portion extending substantially vertical and an upper frontal sole portion extending diagonally upward and forward from a top of the lower frontal sole portion. Figure 4C also appears to show a first frontal sole portion between the lower frontal sole portion and the lower striking face portion having a distance greater than a distance of the second frontal sole portion between the upper frontal sole portion and the lower striking face portion and an opening between the frontal sole portion and the lower striking face portion. Shear also
discloses an insert fitted into the opening. Shear also discloses that the insert can partially or wholly fill the slot (See Paragraph 0053). Filling the slot wholly implies that the insert forms part of the sole portion. Shear does not disclose the striking face having an upper striking face portion and a lower striking face portion wherein the lower
striking face portion has a thickness greater than the upper striking face portion. Meyer
et al. discloses a club head having a striking face with a variable thickness. The striking
face includes an upper striking face and lower striking face wherein the upper striking
face has a thickness that is smaller than the lower striking face (See Figure 13a). One
having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the lower striking
face having a thickness greater than the upper striking face, as taught by Meyer et al.,
in order to lower the center of gravity and shift the COR upward.
Regarding claim 15, Shear discloses that the opening may completely fill the opening (See Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 18, Shear shows the frontal sole portion angle being greater than 90 degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 20 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Previously indicated allowable claim 3 contains the same language as claim 15. Claim 15 was rejected based on the Shear reference. Therefore, incorporating claim 3 into claim 13 would cover limitations that were previously rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
