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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Woodward et al. (2023/0390617). Claim 1, Woodward discloses an iron golf club head comprising a main body defining a hollow, the main body including a toe, a heel, a face, a back face, a top, and a sole (figs 4-5). A weight (150) disposed within the hollow, the weight including a weight front, weight back, weight top, weight bottom, weight first side, and a weight second side, wherein a perimeter of the weight is defined by the weight top, weight first side, weight bottom, and weight second side (figs 6 and 8). The back face comprises a hollow back-side wall partially defining the hollow, the hollow back-side wall comprising a protrusion extending over at least a portion of the weight top (fig 11). The weight (150) is welded to the main body [0066]. The weight is disposed at an offset from the sole defining a first gap (Ds) between the weight and the sole and at an offset from the face defining a second gap (DSF) between the weight and the face (fig 6). Claim 2, the weight (150) is welded to the main body around greater than 90 degrees of the perimeter of the weight but less than 270 degrees of the perimeter of the weight. The weight (150) can be attached to one or more internal surfaces including the heel end and top satisfying the perimeter attachment between 90 and 270 degrees [0066] (fig 8 - items 170 connected on the toe side and top). Claim 4, the weight is welded to the main body along at least a portion of the weight back, wherein the weight back is disposed proximate the back face (mass pad 130) [0066]. Claim 5, the back face comprises a hollow back-side wall partially defining the hollow, the hollow back-side wall comprising a recess (fig 5). The recess is located behind weight (150). Claim 6, the weight (150) is disposed at least partially within the recess (fig 5). Claim 8, the main body comprises steel [0069]. Claim 10, the first gap (Ds) is capable of allowing the sole to flex without contacting the weight. Claim 11, the second gap (DSF) is capable of allowing the face to deflect without contacting the weight. Claim 20, Woodward discloses an iron golf club head comprising a main body defining a hollow, the main body including a toe, a heel, a face, a back face, a top, and a sole (figs 4-5). A weight (150) disposed within the hollow, the weight including a weight front, weight back, weight top, weight bottom, weight first side, and a weight second side, wherein a perimeter of the weight is defined by the weight top, weight first side, weight bottom, and weight second side (figs 6 and 8). The back face comprises a hollow back-side wall partially defining the hollow, the hollow back-side wall comprising a protrusion extending over at least a portion of the weight top (fig 11). The weight (150) is welded to the main body along a portion of the weight first side, along the weight top, and along a portion of the weight second side, wherein the weight first side is disposed proximate the toe, the weight top is disposed proximate the top, and the weight second side is disposed proximate the heel (fig 8 - items 170 connected at least on the toe side and top). The weight (150) can be attached to one or more internal surfaces including the heel side and top [0066]. The weight is disposed at an offset from the sole defining a first gap (Ds) between the weight and the sole and at an offset from the face defining a second gap (DSF) between the weight and the face (fig 6).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward et al. (2023/0390617). Woodward discloses the weight may be from 10 to 30 grams [0071]. Increasing the weight to approximately 46 grams is within the capabilities of one skilled in the art for the desired weight of the club head. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward et al. (2023/0390617) in view of Woodward et al. (2022/0233924). Woodward discloses the club head has a front and back (fig 5) but does not disclose welding. Woodward ‘924 teaches front and back sections of a club head welded together [0049]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the connection type to welding for a more secure club head.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward et al. (2023/0390617) in view of Jertson et al. (2019/0176001). Claim 7, Woodward discloses the weight may be made from tungsten or tungsten alloy [0070]. Tungsten combined with nickel is not disclosed. Jertson teaches a detachable weight/mass made from tungsten and nickel [0076]. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the material for the desired club head weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-19 are allowed.
Claim 21 is 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 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the weight bar of Woodward is suspended. However, the attachment locations claimed by applicant are the same as Woodward, see [0066].
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 RAEANN GORDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAEANN GORDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights