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
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required in subsequent amendments. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Regarding claim 5, line 2, “The” should be changed to the.
Regarding claim 5, line 3, “The” should be changed to the.
Regarding claim 7, line 9, “38-47” should be changed to 38 to 47 to reflect the format used throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 8, lines 18-19 are redundant, repeating limitations in lines 14-15. Furthermore, all of the zones are further defined in claim 8 except for the first toe zone.
Regarding claim 12, line 8, “face plate” should be changed to a face plate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-12, line 1 of each claim, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (putter) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). It is suggested to change “putter-type” in line 1 of each claim to putter to remedy this rejection.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is indefinite for using a trademark as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product. The trademark “PEBAX®” is used to identify a source of goods and is not the name of the goods themselves. See MPEP 2173.05(u). It is suggested to change ”PEBAX® material” to polyether block amide that is a thermoplastic elastomer made of a flexible polyether and rigid polyamide as supported by the specification to remedy this rejection.
Regarding claim 12, lines 17-26, the durometer values are indefinite. The claim fails to specify which scale (e.g., 00, A, or D) is being referenced. It is suggested to change “shore” in lines 18, 20, 22, and 26 to shore D and to change “35 and 40” in line 24 to 35 and 40 shore D to remedy this rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US 9,566,484 B1) in view of Hardman (US 5,405,136).
Regarding claims 1-3, Abbott discloses a putter-type club head (Figure 5) comprising: a body [100] having a toe end [140], a heel end [130] opposite the toe end [140], a front end [150], a rear end [160] opposite the front end [150], a top [110], and a bottom [120] opposite the top [110]; a front surface of the front end [150] and a front recess [155] extending from the front surface toward the rear end [160]; a face insert [20, 30, 40] disposed in the front recess [155] and having a geometric center; wherein: the face insert [20, 30, 40] comprises a face plate [20], a middle layer [30], and an adhesive layer [40]; the middle layer [30] comprises: a central zone formed of a central zone material having a central zone hardness on a Shore D hardness scale (col. 4 line 22 – col. 5 line 10 and Figures 1-2A and 5). Abbott does not disclose the central zone hardness ranging from 28 to 32 or a first toe zone or a first heel zone. Hardman, however, teaches a similar club head [71] comprising: a face insert [72] disposed in a front recess, the face insert [72] comprising: a central zone [74] formed of a central zone material having a central zone hardness on a Shore D hardness scale; a first toe zone [A] (see annotated Figure 9 below for all reference letters) located between the central zone [74] and the toe end [38], the first toe zone [A] is formed of a first toe zone material having a first toe zone hardness on the Shore D hardness scale; a first heel zone [B] located between the central zone [74] and the heel end [39], the first heel zone [B] is formed of a first heel zone material having a first heel zone hardness on the Shore D hardness scale, wherein: a second toe zone [C] located between the first toe zone [A] and the toe end [38]; a second heel zone [D] located between the first heel zone [B] and the heel end [39]; the first toe zone [A] borders the central zone [74]; and the first heel zone [B] borders the central zone [74], wherein: the second toe zone [C] is formed of a second toe zone material having a second toe zone hardness on the Shore D hardness scale; and the second heel zone [D] is formed of a second heel zone material having a second heel zone hardness on the Shore D hardness scale, wherein the hardness increases from the central zone [74] to the outermost toe and heel zones [75, 76] (col. 3 lines 3-39, col. 4 lines 12-18, Figures 3-4 and 9-10, and annotated Figure 9 below). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the middle layer of Abbot to include a central zone, a first toe zone, a first heel zone, a second toe zone, and a second heel zone, wherein the hardness of the zones increases from the central zone to the second toe zone and second heel zone because Hardman teaches that this configuration compensates for off-center hits by projecting the ball toward the path of a center hit (col. 1 lines 60-68 and col. 3 lines 31-39). Hardman discloses the hardness varying from 40 Shore A hardness (less than 0 Shore D hardness) in the center zone to 80 Shore A hardness (~30-35 Shore D hardness) at the outer zones but does not explicitly disclose the central zone hardness being 28 to 32 Shore D hardness, the first toe zone hardness ranging from 33 to 37 Shore D hardness, the first heel zone hardness ranging from 30 to 35 Shore D hardness, the second toe zone hardness ranging from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness, or the second heel zone hardness ranging from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness. However, Hardman discloses the variable hardness of the zones with a softer center zone and harder outer zones achieving the result of projecting the golf ball toward the flight path of a center hit (col. 1 lines 60-68 and col. 3 lines 31-39); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that zone hardness is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the central zone hardness to range from 28 to 32 on a Shore D hardness scale, the first toe zone hardness to range from 33 to 37 on a Shore D hardness scale, the first heel zone hardness to range from 30 to 35 on a Shore D hardness scale, the second toe zone hardness to range from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness scale, and the second heel zone hardness to range from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness scale to achieve desired ball projection, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the modified Abbott discloses the putter-type club head of claim 3, wherein: The face plate [20] has a thickness that is less than 0.050 inch (col. 2 lines 4-6; “no less than 0.005 inch and no more than 0.100 inch;” which includes the claimed value); and The middle layer [30] has a thickness that is between 0.10 and 0.25 inch (col. 4 lines 59-61: “0.100 to 0.150 inch, and more preferably a thickness of approximately 0.120 inch:” which falls within the claimed range) (col. 2 lines 4-6, 57-59, col. 4 lines 41-61, and Figure 4).
Regarding claims 6-7, Abbott discloses a putter-type club head (Figure 5) comprising: a body [100] having a toe end [140], a heel end [130] opposite the toe end [140], a front end [150], a rear end [160] opposite the front end [150], a top [110], and a bottom portion [120] opposite the top [110]; a front surface (see face portion [150]) and a front recess [155] located on the front surface (see face portion [150]); a face insert [20, 30, 40] having a geometric center; and wherein: the face insert [20, 30, 40] comprises a face plate [20], a middle layer [30], and an adhesive layer [40]; the face plate [20] is formed from a metallic material (col. 4 line 24: “6061 aluminum”) and completely covers the middle layer [30] and adhesive layer [40] such that no portion of the middle layer [30] or the adhesive layer [40] are visible when in the front recess [155]; the face plate [20] forms a portion of the front surface (see face portion [150]) to form an uninterrupted front surface configured to impact a golf ball (col. 4 line 22 – col. 5 line 10 and Figures 1-2A and 5). Abbott does not disclose the middle layer comprising a central zone, a first toe zone, a first heel zone, a second toe zone, a second heel zone, a third heel zone, and a third toe zone. Hardman, however, teaches a similar club head [71] comprising: a face insert [72] disposed in a front recess, the face insert [72] comprises a central zone [74], a first toe zone [A] (see annotated Figure 9 above for all reference letters), a first heel zone [B], a second toe zone [C], and a second heel zone [D]; the central zone [74] comprises a central zone toe surface (see left side of center strip [74] in Figure 9) and a central zone heel surface (see right side of center strip [74] in Figure 9); the first toe zone [A] comprises a first toe zone distal surface (see left side of strip [A] in annotated Figure 9 above) and a first toe zone medial surface (see right side of strip [A] in annotated Figure 9 above); the first heel zone [B] comprises a first heel zone distal surface (see right side of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above) and a first heel zone medial surface (see left side of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above); the second toe zone [C] comprises a second toe zone distal surface (see left side of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above) and a second toe zone medial surface (see right side of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above); the second heel zone [D] comprises a second heel zone distal surface (see right side of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above) and a second heel zone medial surface (see left side of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above); the central zone toe surface (see left side of center strip [74] in Figure 9) abuts the first toe zone medial surface (see right side of strip [A] in annotated Figure 9 above), the central zone heel surface (see right side of center strip [74] in Figure 9) abuts the first heel zone medial surface (see left side of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above); the first heel zone distal surface (see right side of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above) abuts the second heel zone medial surface (see left side of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above), the first toe zone distal surface (see left side of strip [A] in annotated Figure 9 above) abuts the second toe zone medial surface (see right side of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above); the central zone [74] comprises a central durometer on a Shore D hardness scale; the first toe zone [A] comprises a first toe zone durometer on the Shore D hardness scale; the first heel zone [B] comprises a first heel zone durometer on the Shore D hardness scale; the second toe zone [C] comprises a second toe zone durometer on the Shore D hardness scale; and the second heel zone [D] comprises a second heel zone durometer on the Shore D hardness scale, wherein: the middle layer comprises a third heel zone [76] and a third toe zone [75]; the third heel zone [76] comprises a third heel zone distal surface (see right side of heel strip [76] in Figure 9) and a third heel zone medial surface (see left side of heel strip [76] in Figure 9); the third toe zone [75] comprises a third toe zone distal surface (see left side of toe strip [75] in Figure 9) and a third toe zone medial surface (see right side of toe strip [75] in Figure 9); the third heel zone medial surface (see left side of heel strip [76] in Figure 9) abuts the second heel zone distal surface (see right side of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above); the third toe zone medial surface (see right side of toe strip [75] in Figure 9) abuts the second toe zone distal surface (see left side of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above); the third heel zone [76] comprises a third heel zone durometer on the Shore D hardness scale; and the third toe zone comprises a third toe zone durometer on the Shore D hardness scale, wherein the hardness increases from the central zone [74] to the outermost toe and heel zones [75, 76] (col. 3 lines 3-39, col. 4 lines 12-18, and Figures 3-4 and 9-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the middle layer of Abbot to include a central zone, a first toe zone, a first heel zone, a second toe zone, a second heel zone, a third heel zone, and a third toe zone, wherein the hardness of the zones increases from the central zone to the third toe zone and third heel zone because Hardman teaches that this configuration compensates for off-center hits by projecting the ball toward the path of a center hit (col. 1 lines 60-68 and col. 3 lines 31-39). Hardman discloses the hardness varying from 40 Shore A hardness (less than 0 Shore D hardness) in the center zone to 80 Shore A hardness (~30-35 Shore D hardness) at the outer zones but does not explicitly disclose the central zone hardness being 28 to 32 Shore D hardness, the first toe zone hardness ranging from 33 to 37 Shore D hardness, the first heel zone hardness ranging from 30 to 35 Shore D hardness, the second toe zone hardness ranging from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness, the second heel zone hardness ranging from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness, the third heel zone hardness ranging from 38 to 47 Shore D hardness, or the third toe zone hardness ranging from 38 to 47 Shore D hardness. However, Hardman discloses the variable hardness of the zones with a softer center zone and harder outer zones achieving the result of projecting the golf ball toward the flight path of a center hit (col. 1 lines 60-68 and col. 3 lines 31-39); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that zone hardness is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the central zone hardness to range from 28 to 32 on a Shore D hardness scale, the first toe zone hardness to range from 33 to 37 on a Shore D hardness scale, the first heel zone hardness to range from 30 to 35 on a Shore D hardness scale, the second toe zone hardness to range from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness scale, the second heel zone hardness to range from 35 to 42 Shore D hardness scale, the third heel zone hardness to range from 38 to 47 Shore D hardness scale, and the third toe zone hardness to range from 38 to 47 Shore D hardness scale, to achieve desired ball projection, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 8, Hardman discloses in the modified Abbott, the putter-type club head of claim 7, wherein: the body (see Figure 9) comprises an imaginary insert midplane [E] that is perpendicular to a ground plane and extends through the geometric center; the central zone [74] comprises a central zone midline (a midline of center strip [74] extending “into the page” in Figure 9) that is perpendicular to the front surface and is equidistant from the first toe zone medial surface (see right side of strip [A] in annotated Figure 9 above) and the first heel zone medial surface (see left side of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above) and extends perpendicular to the front surface; the first heel zone [B] comprises a first heel zone midline (a midline of strip [B] extending “into the page” in annotated Figure 9 above) that is perpendicular to the front surface and is equidistant from the first heel zone distal surface (see right side of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above) and the first heel zone medial surface (see left side of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above); the second toe zone [C] comprises a second toe midline (a midline of strip [C] extending “into the page” in annotated Figure 9 above) that is perpendicular to the front surface and is equidistant from the second toe zone distal surface (see left side of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above) and the second toe zone medial surface (see right side of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above); the second heel zone [D] comprises a second heel zone midline (a midline of strip [D] extending “into the page” in annotated Figure 9 above) that is perpendicular to the front surface and is equidistant from the second heel zone distal surface (see right side of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above) and the second heel zone medial surface (see left side of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above); the third toe zone [75] comprises a third toe zone midline (a midline of toe strip [75] extending “into the page” in Figure 9) that is perpendicular to the front surface and is equidistant from the third toe zone distal surface (see left side of toe strip [75] in Figure 9) and the third toe zone medial surface (see right side of toe strip [75] in Figure 9); the third heel zone [76] comprises a third heel zone midline (a midline of heel strip [76] extending “into the page” in Figure 9) that is perpendicular to the front surface and is equidistant from the third heel zone distal surface (see right side of heel strip [76] in Figure 9) and the third heel zone medial surface (see left side of heel strip [76] in Figure 9); the third toe zone [75] comprises a third toe zone midline (a midline of toe strip [75] extending “into the page” in Figure 9) that is perpendicular to the front surface and is equidistant from the third toe zone distal surface (see left side of toe strip [75] in Figure 9) and the third toe zone medial surface (see right side of toe strip [75] in Figure 9); the central zone midline (a midline of center strip [74] extending “into the page” in Figure 9) is coplanar with the imaginary insert midplane [E] (col. 4 lines 12-18, Figures 9-10, and annotated Figure 9 above). Hardman discloses the midlines getting progressively further from the imaginary insert midplane, with the first toe and heel zone midlines being the closest and the third toe and heel zone midlines being the furthest from the imaginary insert midplane. Hardman discloses the spacing of the zones achieving the result of varying hardness such that the center strip has the lowest hardness with the hardness increasing toward the toe strip and heel strip (col. 4 lines 12-18); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that relative location of the strips is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the midlines from the imaginary insert midplanes as outlined in the claim to achieve desired strip spacing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Abbott discloses the putter-type club head of claim 7, wherein: the face plate [20] has a thickness that is between 0.005 and 0.050 inch (col. 2 lines 4-6; “no less than 0.005 inch and no more than 0.100 inch;” which encompasses the claimed range); and the middle layer [30] has a thickness that is between 0.025 and 0.25 inch (col. 4 lines 59-61: “0.100 to 0.150 inch, and more preferably a thickness of approximately 0.120 inch:” which falls within the claimed range) (col. 2 lines 4-6, 57-59, col. 4 lines 41-61, and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Abbott discloses the putter-type club head of claim 8, wherein: the face plate [20] comprises a plurality of horizontal grooves [24] extending in a heel-toe direction (col. 4 lines 22-40 and Figures 1-2A; wherein the holes [24] are oval-shaped with the major axes of the oval holes extending horizontally in a heel-toe direction).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Abbott discloses a putter-type club head (Figure 5) comprising: a body [100] having a toe end [140], a heel end [130] opposite the toe end [140], a front end [150], a rear end [160] opposite the front end [150], a top [110], and a bottom portion [120] opposite the top [110]; a front surface (see face portion [150]) and a front recess [155] located on the front surface (see face portion [150]); a face insert [20, 30, 40] having a geometric center; and a midplane that is perpendicular to a ground plane and extends through the geometric center; wherein: the face insert [20, 30, 40] comprises a face plate [20], a middle layer [30], and an adhesive layer [40]; the face plate [20] is located outboard, the adhesive layer [40] (specifically see adhesive [40] adjacent the recess [155] in Figure 5) is located inboard, and the middle layer [30] is disposed between the face plate [20] and adhesive layer [40] (col. 4 line 22 – col. 5 line 10 and Figures 1-2A and 5). Abbott does not disclose a first heel point, a first toe point, a first heel zone point, and a second toe point with varying durometer. Hardman, however, teaches a similar club head [71] comprising: a face insert [72] comprising a layer disposed in a front recess, a midplane [E] that is perpendicular to a ground plane, the face insert [72] further comprises a first heel point (a midpoint of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above), a first toe point (a midpoint of strip [A] in annotated Figure 9 above), a first heel zone point (a midpoint of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above), and a second toe point (a midpoint of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above); the first heel point (a midpoint of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above) is located horizontally and heelward of the midplane [E]; the first toe point (a midpoint of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above) is located horizontally and toeward of the midplane [E]; the first heel zone point (a midpoint of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above) is located further horizontally and heelward of the midplane [E]; the second toe point (a midpoint of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above) is located further horizontally and toeward of the midplane; the layer comprises a center durometer at the geometric center; the layer comprises a first heel durometer at the first heel point (a midpoint of strip [B] in annotated Figure 9 above); the layer comprises a first toe durometer at the first toe point (a midpoint of strip [A] in annotated Figure 9 above); the layer comprises a first heel zone durometer at the first heel zone point (a midpoint of strip [D] in annotated Figure 9 above); and the layer comprises a second toe durometer at the second toe point (a midpoint of strip [C] in annotated Figure 9 above), wherein the durometer increases from the central zone [74] to the outermost toe and heel zones [75, 76] (col. 3 lines 3-39, col. 4 lines 12-18, and Figures 3-4 and 9-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the middle layer of Abbot to include a first heel point, a first toe point, a first heel zone point, and a second toe point, wherein the hardness of the points increases from the geometric center to the first heel zone point and second toe point because Hardman teaches that this configuration compensates for off-center hits by projecting the ball toward the path of a center hit (col. 1 lines 60-68 and col. 3 lines 31-39). Hardman discloses the hardness varying from 40 Shore A hardness (less than 0 Shore D hardness) in the center zone to 80 Shore A hardness (~30-35 Shore D hardness) at the outer zones but does not explicitly disclose a center durometer that is less than 30 shore, a first heel durometer that is between 30 and 35 shore, a first toe durometer that is between 35 and 40 shore, a first heel zone durometer that is between 35 and 40, or a second toe durometer that is between 40 and 45 shore. However, Hardman discloses the variable hardness of the strips with a softer center strip and harder outer strips achieving the result of projecting the golf ball toward the flight path of a center hit (col. 1 lines 60-68 and col. 3 lines 31-39); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that zone hardness is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the center durometer to be less than 30 shore, the first heel durometer to be between 30 and 35 shore, the first toe durometer to be between 35 and 40 shore, the first heel zone durometer to be between 35 and 40, and the second toe durometer to be between 40 and 45 shore, to achieve desired ball projection, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Hardman also discloses the first heel zone point and second toe point being further from the midplane than the first heel point and first toe point but does not explicitly state the distance. Hardman discloses the spacing of the strips achieving the result of varying hardness such that the center strip has the lowest hardness with the hardness increasing toward the toe strip and heel strip (col. 4 lines 12-18); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that relative location of the strips is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the first heel point and first toe point 0.25 inches from the midplane and the first heel zone point and second toe point 0.50 inches from the midplane to achieve desired strip spacing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott in view of Hardman as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Matt Saternus (PING Sigma G Putter Review).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Abbott discloses the putter-type club head of claim 3, wherein: the middle layer [30] is formed from a polymeric material; and the face plate [20] is formed from an aluminum material (col. 4 lines 22-26 and Figure 5). The modified Abbott discloses the middle layer being formed from a polymer, but does not specifically disclose PEBAX®. Saternus, however, reviews a similar putter-type club head comprising a face plate (page 3: “6061 aerospace-grade aluminum face”) and a middle layer (page 3: “Pebax elastomer”), wherein: the middle layer (page 3: “Pebax elastomer”) is formed from a PEBAX® material; and the face plate (page 3: “6061 aerospace-grade aluminum face”) is formed from an aluminum material (page 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Abbott middle layer to be formed from a PEBAX® material because Saternus teaches that this configuration provides a putter with a soft, responsive feel with incredibly consistent sound (page 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott in view of Hardman as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Degerness et al. (US 2023/0249039 A1). The examiner would like to point out that provisional application 63/506,014 does not provide support for claim 10 such that the effective filing date of claim 10 is the date non-provisional application 18/680,768 was actually filed, 31 May 2024.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Abbott is silent as to the loft angle, body mass, and front surface maximum height. Degerness, however, teaches a similar putter-type club head [100] comprising a body [108] and a front surface [110], wherein: the front surface [110] defines a loft angle that is between 0 and 8 degrees (paragraph 0092: “between 0 degrees and 8 degrees”); the body [108] comprises a mass between 345 and 380 grams (paragraph 0069: “between 320 and 380 grams” which encompasses the claimed range); and the front surface [110] comprises a max height that is less than 1.25 inches (paragraph 0106: “the height can be between 0.90 inches and 1.00 inches, 1.00 inches and 1.10 inches, 1.10 inches and 1.15 inches, 1.15 inches and 1.20 inches”) (paragraphs 0069, 0092, 0106, 0110, 0113, 0123, and Figures 1-6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Abbot to have a loft angle between 0 and 8 degrees, a body mass between 345 and 380 grams, and a front surface max height that is less than 1.25 inches because Degerness teaches that a putter with these characteristics can be selected based on preferences of the player and have a direct effect on the control the player has on a putt (paragraphs 0069, 0092, 0106, 0113, and 0123).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Fisher (US 5,674,132) which teaches a similar golf putter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights