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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingelstad (US 6,056,647).
Regarding claim 1, Tingelstad discloses an adapter to connect a straight golf shaft with a golf club head (Figure 4, element 22), the adapter comprising:
a first end (see annotated figure below) that is cylindrical and that is configured to be joined with the golf club head; and
a second end (see annotated figure below) that is connected to the first end, that is cylindrical, and that is configured to be joined with a tip end of the straight golf shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Tingelstad does not explicitly disclose the angle between (a) a first plane through a first axis of the first end and (b) a second plane through a second axis of the second end is between 0.5 degrees and 45 degrees.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle, X, between the first plane of the first cylindrical end and the second plane of the second cylindrical end of the shaft coupler would result in a difference in function of the Tingelstad device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shaft coupler of Tingelstad, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle “may” be within the claimed range (e.g., 0.5-45 degrees, specification at para. [0055]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the shaft coupler of Tingelstad to have an angle between 0.5 and 45 degrees as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1, and additionally discloses a golf club (Figure 3, element 10) also comprising the straight golf club shaft (Figure 3, element 12), the golf club head (Figure 3, element 18), wherein the first end of the adapter is joined with the golf club head (Figure 4, element 22 joined with element 18/20) and the second end of the adapter is joined with the tip end of the straight golf shaft (Figure 4, element 22 joined with element 12).
Regarding claim 3, Tingelstad discloses the golf club of claim 2, and additionally discloses a golf club head that is a putter head (Figure 3, element 18).
Regarding claim 7, Tingelstad discloses the golf club of claim 2, and additionally discloses a second end of the adapter that is fixed to the tip end of the straight golf shaft via the adapter and the straight golf shaft having been co- bonded (“permanently attached”, col. 5, line 43-45).
Regarding claim 8, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1, and also discloses a first end that includes a cylindrical recessed portion configured to receive a cylindrical post on the golf club head (Figure 4, element 22 receives element 20).
Regarding claim 10, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose an outer diameter of the cylindrical recessed portion that is between 0.3 inches to 0.4 inches.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the outer diameter of the cylindrical recessed portion would result in a difference in function of the Tingelstad device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shaft coupler of Tingelstad, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 0.25-0.75 inches, specification at para. [0054]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the shaft coupler of Tingelstad to have an outer diameter of the cylindrical recessed portion that is between 0.3 inches to 0.4 inches as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1, and also discloses a second end that includes a cylindrical recessed portion configured to receive an outer diameter of the straight golf shaft (Figure 4, element 22 receives element 12).
Regarding claim 13, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose an outer diameter of the cylindrical recessed portion that is between 0.3 inches to 0.4 inches.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the outer diameter of the cylindrical recessed portion would result in a difference in function of the Tingelstad device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shaft coupler of Tingelstad, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 0.25-0.75 inches, specification at para. [0054]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the shaft coupler of Tingelstad to have an outer diameter of the cylindrical recessed portion that is between 0.3 inches to 0.4 inches as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 14, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1, and also discloses a first end that includes a cylindrical recessed portion configured to receive a cylindrical post on the golf club head (Figure 4, element 22 receives element 20) and a second end that includes a cylindrical recessed portion configured to receive an outer diameter of the straight golf shaft (Figure 4, element 22 receives element 12).
Regarding claim 18, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose an outer diameter of the first end that is between 0.25 inches to 0.75 inches.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the outer diameter of the first end would result in a difference in function of the Tingelstad device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shaft coupler of Tingelstad, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable dimensions (“another suitable diameter”, specification at para. [0054]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the shaft coupler of Tingelstad to have an outer diameter of the first end that is between 0.25 inches to 0.75 inches as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 19, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose an outer diameter of the second end that is between 0.25 inches to 0.75 inches.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the outer diameter of the second end would result in a difference in function of the Tingelstad device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shaft coupler of Tingelstad, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable dimensions (“another suitable diameter”, specification at para. [0054]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the shaft coupler of Tingelstad to have an outer diameter of the second end that is between 0.25 inches to 0.75 inches as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 20, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1, and additionally discloses a straight golf shaft that is straight axially and does not include any bends along the axis of the straight golf shaft (Figure 3, element 12).
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt (US 6,083,113).
Regarding claim 1, Bernhardt discloses an adapter to connect a straight golf shaft with a golf club head (Figure 8, element 90), the adapter comprising:
a first end (Figure 8, element 93) that is cylindrical and that is configured to be joined with the golf club head; and
a second end (Figure 8, element 91) that is connected to the first end, that is cylindrical, and that is configured to be joined with a tip end of the straight golf shaft.
However, Bernhardt does not explicitly disclose the angle between (a) a first plane through a first axis of the first end and (b) a second plane through a second axis of the second end is between 0.5 degrees and 45 degrees.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle, X, between the first plane of the first cylindrical end and the second plane of the second cylindrical end of the shaft coupler would result in a difference in function of the Bernhardt device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shaft coupler of Bernhardt, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle “may” be within the claimed range (e.g., 0.5-45 degrees, specification at para. [0055]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the shaft coupler of Bernhardt to have an angle between 0.5 and 45 degrees as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Bernhardt discloses the adapter of claim 1, and additionally discloses a golf club (Figure 7, element 50) also comprising the straight golf club shaft (Figure 8, element 92), the golf club head (Figure 8, element 95), wherein the first end of the adapter is joined with the golf club head (Figure 8, element 93 joined with element 94) and the second end of the adapter is joined with the tip end of the straight golf shaft (Figure 8, element 91 joined with element 92).
Regarding claim 3, Bernhardt discloses the golf club of claim 2, and additionally discloses a golf club head that is a putter head (Figure 8, element 95).
Regarding claim 4, Bernhardt discloses the golf club of claim 2, and additionally discloses a straight golf shaft that is a straight graphite golf shaft (“graphite”, col. 1, line 14).
Regarding claim 5, Bernhardt discloses the golf club of claim 2, and additionally discloses the first end of the adapter fixed to the golf club head via an adhesive (col. 7, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 6, Bernhardt discloses the golf club of claim 2, and additionally discloses the second end of the adapter fixed to the tip end of the straight golf shaft via an adhesive (col. 7, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 15, Bernhardt discloses the adapter of claim 1, and additionally discloses a first end including a cylindrical outer diameter configured to extend into a cylindrical recessed portion in the golf club head (Figure 8, element 93 extends into element 94); and the second end includes a cylindrical recessed portion configured to receive an outer diameter of the straight golf shaft (Figure 8, element 91 receives element 92).
Regarding claim 16, Bernhardt discloses the adapter of claim 1, and additionally discloses a first end including a cylindrical outer diameter configured to extend into a cylindrical recessed portion in the golf club head (Figure 8, element 93 extends into element 94).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingelstad (US 6,056,647) in view of Vasselli (US 4,325,549).
Regarding claim 9, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 8, but does not disclose a first end including one or more apertures that extend through the adapter to the cylindrical recessed portion.
Furthermore, Vasselli teaches a handle portion of a tennis racket including one or more apertures (Figure 1, element 30) that extend through the handle to the cylindrical recessed portion (Figure 1, element 14). Vasselli reveals that it is known in the art of sports equipment to provide a through aperture into a cylindrical recessed portion in order to prevent air pressure actuation within the cylinder. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the adapter of Tingelstad to incorporate the teachings of Vasselli to provide an aperture that extends through the adapter to the cylindrical recessed portion to relieve pressure within the cylindrical recessed portion.
Regarding claim 12, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 11, but does not disclose a second end including one or more apertures that extend through the adapter to the cylindrical recessed portion.
Furthermore, Vasselli teaches a handle portion of a tennis racket including one or more apertures (Figure 1, element 30) that extend through the handle to the cylindrical recessed portion (Figure 1, element 14). Vasselli reveals that it is known in the art of sports equipment to provide a through aperture into a cylindrical recessed portion in order to prevent air pressure actuation within the cylinder. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the adapter of Tingelstad to incorporate the teachings of Vasselli to provide an aperture that extends through the adapter to the cylindrical recessed portion to relieve pressure within the cylindrical recessed portion.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingelstad (US 6,056,647) in view of Rollingson (US 5,803,824).
Regarding claim 17, Tingelstad discloses the adapter of claim 1, but does not disclose an adapter made of one of steel, aluminum, a nickel alloy, a resin, graphite, a plastic, or a metal.
Furthermore, Rollingson space made from steel, aluminum, graphite, or carbon fiber (“steel or aluminum”, col. 6, line 1). Rollingson reveals that it is known in the art of golf putters to provide an adapter made of one of steel, aluminum, or graphite to provide a study and/or lightweight adapter. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the adapter of Tingelstad to incorporate the teachings of Rollingson to provide an adapter made of one of steel, aluminum, or graphite to provide a study and/or lightweight adapter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights